Presentation et question sur les tribus

Bonjour,

Je me prénomme Lætitia (je ne suis pas juive messianique), mon nom de famille est "BANON", qui est le nom francisé de "BEN BANOUN" voulant dire "fils de Noun", Noun est le fils d'Ephraim donc de ce côté aucun soucis
pour la tribu de feu mon grand-père paternel.
Mon arrière grand-mère maternelle est de la tribu de Levi "COHEN"
Le hic c'est que pour le reste de ma famille je ne sais pas du tout :
Ma mère est "CHRIQUI" sauf qu'il ne s'agit aucunement des "CHRIQUI" venant de "CHOURAQUI etc" qui veut dire : "celui qui vient de l'est" mais ceux de "SHRIKI ou CHRIKI" qui veut dire : "mon associé".
Ma grand-mère maternelle à pour nom de jeune fille "SEREZO" qui s’écrirait en vérité "CEREZO" ils viendraient d'Espagne, et sont blonds quasi platines à la peau très claires et aux yeux bleus, pairs.. quand je recherche des infos sur "CEREZO" je ne tombe que sur des catholiques pourtant ils jurent être juifs depuis la nuit des temps.
Ils prétendent par ailleurs être des descendants de l'aristocratie. Le seul descendant au titre aristocratique que j'ai trouvé sur wikipedia est "le comte de Porcellos y Cerezo" qui est aussi catholique apparemment.
Ensuite vient celui de feu ma grand-mère paternel qui est CORCIA
Celui de mon arrière grand-mère paternel qui est EL MEDIONI
je connais aussi dans mes ascendants directes des:
TOUBOUL, EL KAIM, TOLEDANO, BEN GOSALLE, BEN SCHETRIT, AMSELLEM (EMSALEM)

Si vous savez comment je fais pour savoir de quelles tribus ils viennent merci à vous.

Laétitia a écrit:Si vous savez comment je fais pour savoir de quelles tribus ils viennent merci à vous.

Shalom à toi Laetitia :)

retrouver ainsi les tribus dispersées par la généalogie est mission impossible.
De plus, tu te dois de savoir une chose essentielle.

Que tu sois Juive ou non-Juive voici le message de YHWH dans Sa Torah et dans les Livres des Prophètes.



Il faut que tu comprennes bien que Yéshoua Est Celui qui rassemble tout Israël.
Mais YHWH ne sauve pas par le sang ni par les gênes, mais c'est par La Foi.

Si tu aimes de tout ton coeur le Dieu d'Israël et que tu crois en Son Fils Bien-Aimé Yéshoua, alors tu es pleinement Israélite que tu sois Juive ou pas;
Et donc si cela est le cas pour toi, si ton coeur est entier à YHWH, en tant que fille d'Israël, tu te dois de suivre La Torah de YHWH au travers du sang de Yéshoua.
C'est ici ce qu'ont annoncé les Prophètes et aussi ce qu'ont prêché les Apôtres.

Il ne s'agit pas de se convertir au Judaïsme ni au Christianisme mais de se convertir à La Torah de YHWH, de marcher comme Yéshoua a marché c'est à dire en observateur de La Torah, et de croire en Son Salut à la croix, de ne rien ajouter et ne rien retrancher à La Torah.

Si on se remet à Elohim alors Il nous montre comment marcher selon La Torah et nous donne La Force par Son Souffle qui vit en nous de Là suivre comme Il le veut.

Que YHWH Elohim nous dirige et te bénisse
Ruth

merci mais grosse errreur enorme erreur de votre part

IL EXISTE DES CHRIQUI = CHOURAQUI
et des CHRIQUI (ma famille) d'ailleurs la plus part de notre famille l'écrivent "SCH" = SHRIKI

donc les Chriqui que je nomme ne sont absolument pas des "CHOURAQUI"

Il serait difficile d'en être autrement, puisque "ben = fils" donc BEN BANOUN doit bien avoir un rapport avec Noun et Noun est le fils d'Ephraim qui est le fils de Joseph.. Noun est aussi le père de Josué etc.

Le sujet m'interesse,

comment avec quelques information, disont mon nom, puis-je vérifier si j'ai des origine juive?

Connaissez vous un site web qui se spécialiserai dans se domaine.

Nom de Famille (Mongrain) HéHé je crois pas vraiment que se soit plausible mais j'aimerais bien avoir votre avis.

Merci

Bien à vous

On a retrouvé les fils du roi David. Sur la Tamise. (info # 010706/13) [Culture]

Par Sandra Ores © Metula News Agency



Les rois d’Angleterre seraient-ils les descendants d’une des légendaires dix tribus perdues d’Israël dont le destin aurait exceptionnellement bien tourné ? Croyance populaire plus ou moins répandue chez les Britanniques, la légende selon laquelle la couronne d’Angleterre appartiendrait à la lignée davidique, c’est-à-dire celle du roi David, s’appuie sur des théories aussi improbables que fragiles.



Pourtant, au sein de la famille royale, cette idée est visiblement prise très au sérieux, même si de manière discrète. Tant Edouard VII, Georges V, que le prince Charles, portent (ou portaient de leur vivant) sur eux le signe distinctif des fils d’Israël : ils sont circoncis.



Une longue liste d’autres raisons pourraient toutefois se substituer à celle de l’ascendance davidique : ascendance musulmane, mesure d’hygiène, snobisme social, etc.



Pourtant, écartant le médecin de service de la couronne, Elisabeth II (la présente reine) avait choisi un mohel afin de réaliser la circoncision sur son fils, le prince Charles ; un mohel, c’est-à-dire un rabbin préposé à réaliser sur les nouveaux nés mâles l’ablation physique du prépuce, prescrite, selon la Torah, par Dieu à Abraham.





De gauche à droite : le prince Andrew (circoncis), le prince Charles (circoncis), le prince William (?) et le prince Harry (?)



Le prince de Galles s’est ainsi vu lié par la chair aux "coreligionnaires" israélites de sa génération, partageant avec eux le coup de lame exécuté par le spécialiste officiel de la communauté juive londonienne de l’époque, le rabbin Jacob Snowman, quelques jours après sa naissance (nous étions en 1948).



Cette tradition de la circoncision dans la maison de Windsor n’est néanmoins pas si ancienne. Elle remonte au règne de la reine Victoria, qui débuta en 1840. La souveraine de Grande-Bretagne et d’Irlande, sans oublier son titre d’impératrice des Indes, était absolument convaincue de son ascendance directe avec la dynastie biblique.



Elle tint à faire circoncire ses quatre garçons (elle eut en outre cinq filles, avec son époux Albert de Saxe-Cobourg-Gotha, duquel elle était fortement éprise jusqu’à la mort précoce de ce dernier, qui la laissa bouleversée).



Andrew d’York et Edward de Wessex, les deux frères de Charles de Galles, ont également effectué leur alliance avec Dieu (sans donner leur assentiment préalable).



Sans vouloir se mêler de la vie intime des gens, quoique cela soit souvent passionnant… et si l’on s’en réfère aux commentateurs de la famille royale, la femme du prince Charles, la princesse Lady Diana, aurait interrompu la royale coutume vieille de près de 150 ans.



Opposée à cette pratique, elle refusa de faire circoncire ses deux enfants, les princes William et Harry, en dépit des objections de la reine Elisabeth II, de Phillip Mountbatten (le mari d’Elisabeth II, duc d’Edimbourg, né prince Philippe de Grèce et de Danemark) et de la reine mère (Elisabeth Bowes-Lyon, mère d’Elisabeth II).



Soit dit en passant, si vous avez l’occasion de vous rendre à Londres, ne manquez pas, à la National Portrait Gallery (le musée national des portraits), les longs couloirs réservés aux effigies royales. Vous marcherez, certainement seul, sur un parquet grinçant, en proie à tous ces nobles regards peints ou sculptés, et ferez l’expérience d’un frisson, je vous le garantis, assez particulier.



Pour en revenir au présent, des rumeurs, ventilées notamment par la biographe de William et Harry, Ingrid Seward, écrivain et rédactrice en chef de Majesty Magazine (un magazine de cancans se nourrissant des avatars de la maison de Windsor) nous apportent un autre éclairage.



La mythique princesse de Galles aurait, quelques années plus tard, finalement donné son accord pour la circoncision chirurgicale du premier, puis du second de ses fils. Dans les couloirs des tabloïds anglais, il se murmure en effet que le duc de Cambridge, à l’adolescence, alors qu’il était hospitalisé au motif officiel d’une hernie, avait en fait subi la circoncision.



Tous ces précis détails contrastent cependant avec le flou qui domine dans la définition du lien entre le roi David et ses "descendants" britanniques. Au XIXème siècle, coïncidant avec le règne de la reine Victoria, la doctrine de l’anglo-israélisme se développa et gagna en popularité au Royaume-Uni.



Il s’agit d’un courant religieux chrétien, prétendant que les Anglo-Saxons contemporains, vivant en Grande-Bretagne et aux Etats-Unis, descendent directement des dix tribus perdues, et sont unis par une alliance spéciale au trône de David. Cette croyance est issue du restaurationnisme chrétien, un ensemble de mouvements se targuant de restaurer l’Eglise antique des apôtres parmi une certaine apostasie qui aurait alors frappé le monde chrétien.



Selon les croyances de l’anglo-israélisme, les Anglo-Saxons descendraient des tribus Scythes, ces dernières procédant des tribus perdues.



Les Scythes forment un peuple des steppes eurasiennes ayant vécu entre le VIIème et le IIIème avant J.-C. et parlaient une langue iranienne. Les récits d’Hérodote (circa 484-420 avant J.-C.) constituent la principale source de renseignements à leur sujet. Selon l’historien grec, les Scythes auraient contribué à la chute des Assyriens au VIIème siècle avant notre ère, pillant en outre la Mésopotamie et la Terre promise. A la période hellénistique, ils donnèrent probablement leur nom à la cité actuelle de Beït-Shéan, une ville israélienne située à l’est du Jourdain, alors baptisée Scythopolis, "la ville des Scythes", en grec.



Les arbres généalogiques liés à cette théorie tracent une ligne droite entre le trône du roi David, qui transite par l’un de ses successeurs, Zedekiah (le dernier roi supposé de Judée avant la destruction du Temple de Jérusalem par les Babyloniens en -587), puis par le trône d’Irlande, puis celui d’Ecosse, avant d’aboutir finalement à la personne de Victoria.



Ces croyances ne sont pas l’apanage unique de prédicateurs, puisque la "Déclaration d’Arbroath", une déclaration d’indépendance écossaise écrite en 1320 sous forme d’une lettre officielle à l’attention du Pape Jean XXII, indique une destinée concordante. Le document, signé par les principaux nobles d’Ecosse de l’époque, mentionne le fait que les aïeux des Ecossais parvinrent de Scythie, traversèrent l’Espagne avant de gagner leur demeure "douze cents ans après que le peuple d’Israël ait traversé la mer Rouge".



Le Professeur émérite des Etudes juives modernes de l’université des Etudes Orientales et Africaines de Londres, Tudor Parfitt, spécialiste de la démonstration de l’existence de liens génétiques entre aspirants descendants de tribus perdues et le peuple élu, a toutefois conclu à la faiblesse des prétentions israélisantes des Anglo-Saxons ("en dépit des bas standards exigés dans ce type de recherches", dixit le scientifique à mon oreille).



Reste une question cruciale qu’ont déjà abordée les tabloïds anglais. D’ici un petit mois, Son Altesse royale la duchesse de Cambridge (autrement comtesse de Strathearn - province d’Ecosse - et baronne Carrickfergus - ville d’Irlande du Nord) mettra au monde un nouveau né. Si c’est un garçon, se fera-t-il circoncire ?



Dans l’attente d’une réponse qui restera peut-être étrangère aux oreilles (et aux yeux assurément) du grand public, nous nous permettons la fantaisie de nous demander si le mot British ne dériverait pas, par hasard, de Brit - Brit milah, la circoncision, littéralement l’ "alliance par le verbe" ? Le suffixe "ish", pouvant se traduire quant à lui en anglais par "à peu près", lorsqu’il est accolé à la fin d’un mot. En hébreu, "ish", c’est l’ "homme" : British signifiant littéralement l’ "homme de l’alliance". A la famille royale de savoir ce qu’il reste de cette mystérieuse alliance biblico-mystico-divine. Moi, tant que les Windsor ne réclament pas le trône d’Israël, je nourris ma curiosité et je souris.





Metula News

Agency ©



Cette diffusion est destinée aux professionnels de l'information aussi bien qu’aux personnes privées.

En effet Lucas, au sujet de la couronne britanique, quelle ne fut pas ma surprise que d'apprendre cela? Et de même quelle ne fut pas ma surprise de constater que la majorité des Américains des Etats-Unis sont circoncis et qu'il est même mal vu de ne pas être circoncis.

Mais la circoncision sans La Foi Véritable ne sert à rien et force est de constater que ces pays comme l'Angleterre et les Etats-Unis sont gangrénés par le péché car ils ont abandonné la Torah d'Elohim.

Au sujet de la puissance de la couronne britanique, cela expliquerait quand même bien des choses car comment expliquer en effet, que ce tout petit pays soit devenu un si grand empire à l'échelle planétaire, rappelons que les anglais ont pratiquement colonisé le monde entier, Inde, Afrique, pays musulmans, Canada, Australie, ect, ect...

Cela rappelle tout de même la prophétie sur Ephraïm et Manassé

Deutéronome 33:17 (Septante)
Sa beauté est comme le premier-né de son taureau, ses cornes sont les cornes d'une licorne ; avec elles il poussera les nations en une seule fois, même du bout de la terre : Ce sont les myriades d'Éphraïm, et ce sont les milliers de Manassé.

notons que le mot μονοκέρωτος monokérotos signifie seule corne et a été traduit par licorne

et que voit-on sur le blason de la couronne britanique?



donc la couronne britanique ne serait peut-être pas issu de Juda mais plutôt d'Ephraïm et de Manassé ou alors d'un mélange des deux.

Shalom

Ruth Administratrice a écrit:
En effet Lucas, au sujet de la couronne britanique, quelle ne fut pas ma surprise que d'apprendre cela? Et de même quelle ne fut pas ma surprise de constater que la majorité des Américains des Etats-Unis sont circoncis et qu'il est même mal vu de ne pas être circoncis.

Mais la circoncision sans La Foi Véritable ne sert à rien et force est de constater que ces pays comme l'Angleterre et les Etats-Unis sont gangrénés par le péché car ils ont abandonné la Torah d'Elohim.

Je te l'avais indiqué déjà, il y a 2 ans.
... Sinon tu as raison seule la foi dans le vrai D.ieu sauve.

CE que ne dit pas complètement l'article c'est que

Les scottish = hommes de Scot = descendants de la princesse Scoota, héritière du trône de Juda.
Irish = Homme d'Irlande

On pense que les Brit-Ish sont juifs et réalise ainsi la prophétie de la Genèse concernant la tribu de Juda.

Welsh = Wel' Ish ...etc..

Le gaelic ancien et l'hébreu ancien sont la même langue !!!


Les britanniques sont un mélange de juifs, de dannites, ephraimites etc....

Regarde ce document emprunté à Peter Salemi


Dans la cathédrale de Senlis, merveilleux monument, on y trouve une stèle à la mémoire des 1 million de britannique morts durant la 1ere guerre mondiale la plupart sur le sol français. Remarque bien dans leur blason :



1/ le lion de Juda
2/ la licorne d'Ephraim
3/ la lyre de David
4/ la couleur rouge, cordon rouge placé au pied de zarah
5/ L'étendue du royaume UK, Indes, Canada, Australie, Afrique du Sud, Nvle Zelande, & NewFoundLand
6/ etc...


Shalom

Shmoulik a écrit:Oui et toit les peuples descendent des tribus juives ..le pape avec!!
La france a ete un immense empiee aussi la hollande aussi l'espagnw se meme.et ainsi se suite.la russie aissi dailleur.faut arreter le delire.

Shalom Shmoulik :)

Qui dit 10 Tribus ne dit pas les 12 Tribus, Juda est Juda et les tribus du Nord regroupées sous la bannière d'Ephraïm ont été bannis, chassés et perdus.

Les 10 tribus d'Israël se sont dispersées en s'assimilant à la totalité des nations.

ce n'est donc pas du délire de croire que leurs descendants aient formé des royaumes différents qui peuplent la terre et qu'il reste dans l'histoire de ces royaumes, des résidus de leurs passés Israélites.

Le Danemark se revendique de la tribu de Dan.

Danemark = marque de Dan.

On sait que la tribu de Dan renommait ses villes en Israël avec le nom de sa tribu.

Nous avons aussi le Danube.

Les Galates=Gaulois ou les Galati sont connus sous le terme de Galadi et en français c’est une forme de l’hébreu "Gilead" (Galaad).

ect, ect...

leur descendance est bien quelque part sur la planète et elle s'est forcemment assimilée comme les prophéties Bibliques l'affirment. Les 10 Tribus ont bien existées et leur descendants sont toujours bien présents.

Béréshith/Genèse 35:11 (Septante)
Elohim lui dit (à Yaakov): Je suis ton Elohim : crois et multiplie ; des nations et des assemblées de nations proviendront de toi, et des rois sortiront de tes reins.

quelles sont ces nations qu'Elohim a fait sortir du sperme de Yaakov si ce ne sont les nations qui sont nées après la dispersion du royaume du Nord d'Israël.

L'Angleterre, la France, Danemark, tous les pays d'Europe, sont nés en tant que pays après la dispersion des 10 tribus du Nord d'Israël, elles n'existaient pas auparavant. Donc pourquoi serait-il du délire de penser que les descendants Israélites se soient mélaient à d'autres peuples pour former ces nouveaux royaumes?

Autrement, où sont les 10 Tribus d'Israël, je ne parle pas juste ici du peuple Juif.

Romains 9:27
Ésaïe, de son côté, s'écrie au sujet d'Israël : Quand le nombre des fils d'Israël serait comme le sable de la mer, Un reste seulement sera sauvé.

Nous savons qu'il s'agit du reste de ceux des nations et des Juifs.
Et pour ma part je crois que cela concerne plus que l'Europe, les USA, ect mais toutes les nations du monde parmi lesquelles les Israélites se sont mélés.

Ci-joint une étude forte intéressante de Peter Salemi
Malheureusement en anglais seulement.

=======================================
The Throne of David in Prophecy
By Peter Salemi

The throne of Britain once held the most power in all of the earth. A once proud British Empire
ruled a quarter of the earth’s land mass. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Caribbean Islands,
the Falkland Islands, Hong Kong, South Africa etc…were all under the rule and guide of the
throne of Britain. How could one office obtain so much power? Is there an ultimate plan for this
particular position of power? Is God behind all of this?
The Most Powerful Throne on Earth
Recently, Queen Elizabeth celebrated her 60th year on the throne, the Diamond Jubilee. But what
she has now is nothing compared to what that throne used to be, and what it stood for. Now
Queen Elizabeth is just a titular head, the throne is practically meaningless, and has lost her
power. Many in Britain feel that the Queen was the one who has been the overseer to the
dismantling of the British Empire, and are not happy with her rule!
The Sovereign's role as a constitutional monarch is largely limited to non-partisan functions,
such as granting honors. This role has been recognized since the 19th century; the constitutional
writer Walter Bagehot identified the monarchy in 1867 as the "dignified part" rather than the
"efficient part" of government. (Bagehot, Walter; edited by Paul Smith (2001). The English
Constitution Cambridge University Press) It has also been claimed that “the UK needs a head of
state for the very occasional crisis.” (McLean, Ian. "The 1909 budget and the destruction of the
unwritten British Constitution" (in English) History & Policy United Kingdom: History &
Policy. Retrieved 9 December 2010).
But back in the hey-day of the British Empire, this throne was the most powerful throne on earth!
At its peak, it ruled a land mass and peoples that numbered up into the hundreds of millions. Two
thirds of the world’s land mass was under that throne! Now it is reduced to a ceremonial
function, giving out awards and holding luncheons. How are the mighty fallen!
How and why did this throne, out of all others receive all that power? Is there something behind
the rise of the greatest throne on earth?
God’s Promises
Many Bible teachers and theologians do not understand that the throne of Britain was actually
promised to David, by God, to be the throne in which David’s descendants, and eventually the
Messiah would rule. Of course when I speak of that throne I am speaking of the office, the
position of power and not a chair.
This promise of God starts back in the book of beginnings, called Genesis. Jacob while inspired
by God through the Holy Spirit, prophesied about the tribe of Judah. That Judah would be a royal
tribe, and tribe to occupy the throne of Israel, “Gather yourselves together, that I may tell you
that which shall befall you in the last days…The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a
lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people
be.” (Gen 49:1, 10). Earlier God told Israel, “kings shall come out of thy loins;” (Gen 35:11). This promise says that Judah would hold the “scepter” and be a “lawgiver” “until Shiloh come.”
Bullinger’s Companion Bible explains these verses in this way, “Judah possessed a lion-like nature. As such he became the leader of the other tribes (Gen_43:3-10; Jdg_1:1-2; Jdg_3:9; Jdg_20:18; etc.). Through him came David and then Messiah, ‘the Lion of the Tribe of Judah’ (Rev_5:5). Judah led the other tribes in the march through the wilderness (Num_2:1-3) and in the monarchy.
“The scepter (Gen_49:10) was and is the symbol of royal command, the right to rule. Judah was to exercise leadership among the tribes until Shiloh came at which time Shiloh would extend Judah's rule to worldwide dominion. Judah's leadership was not consistently preeminent in the history of Israel, however.
“Shiloh (lit. the ‘bearer of rest’) is a proper name. It refers here not to the city in Canaan of that name but to a person who would arise in the tribe of Judah and bring peace to the world, namely, Messiah (cf. Gen_3:15; Num_24:17). We should probably translate it ‘whose it (the ruler's staff) is’ or ‘to whom it belongs’ rather than transliterate it ‘Shiloh’ (cf. Eze_21:26-27). [Note: See Eugene H. Merrill, ‘Rashi, Nicholas de Lyra, and Christian Exegesis,’ Westminster Theological Journal 38 (1975):74-75.] Another live translation option is ‘until tribute is brought to him.’ [Note: Wenham, Genesis 16-50, p. 478. See Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, pp. 892-97, for an extended discussion of the interpretive possibilities.]
‘Whichever of these interpretations is adopted. . . all at least agree that this line is predicting the rise of the Davidic monarchy and the establishment of the Israelite empire, if not the coming of a greater David. And if the primary reference is to David, traditional Jewish and Christian exegetes would agree that like other Davidic promises it has a greater fulfillment in the Messiah.’ [Note: Wenham, Genesis 16-50, p. 478.]
“Because Reuben, Simeon, and Levi had disqualified themselves, Judah received the leadership of the tribes and the blessing that normally went to the first-born. This is how the leadership of the tribes and the Messianic line fell to Judah. Jacob evidently forgave Judah's earlier sins because he repented and later sacrificed himself for Jacob's wellbeing.
“Everything after the word ‘until’ (Gen_49:10) describes millennial conditions.” (Under, “II. PATRIARCHAL NARRATIVES 11:27-50:26” emphasis added). Judah was appointed to be the tribe of the monarchy, and continue to have a royal line “until Shiloh [the messiah] comes” And as the language indicates, not his first coming, but his second coming when he comes to rule the world in the Kingdom of God.
Now many believe that this prophecy started with David, but the prophecy says “Judah.” In fact, the bible says that two lines were to be merged together. The royal line of Judah, and the royal
line of David that was also from Judah, but the scepter had to be ruling during the time when Jacob made that prophecy. Was there a line in Jacob’s time that was ruling already?
Zarah and Pharez
Two royal lines were being born during the time of Jacob when he was in Canaan. In Genesis 38: 27-30, it reads, “And it came to pass in the time of her travail, that, behold, twins were in her womb.
“And it came to pass, when she travailed, that the one put out his hand: and the midwife took and bound upon his hand a scarlet thread, saying, This came out first.
“And it came to pass, as he drew back his hand, that, behold, his brother came out: and she said, How hast thou broken forth? this breach be upon thee: therefore his name was called Pharez.
“And afterward came out his brother, that had the scarlet thread upon his hand: and his name was called Zarah” This is a very interesting event. The births of a great many other people are recorded in the Bible, but in this one case ONLY are the details given -- why? Why is this particular birth singled out for such special attention? Zarah drew out his hand, and a scarlet thread was put on him. The color of scarlet was “applied to fabrics or yarn used [for] royal or gorgeous apparel” (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia under article “colors”). It was already recognized that Judah would be a lawgiver and rule over Israel. Zarah was appointed at the time to be that monarch, and the scarlet cord became an emblem of the Zara branch of the Tribe of Judah, and Pharez created a “breach” between the two lines.
How was this breach created? By Pharez coming out first the midwife said, “How hast thou broken forth?” She put the scarlet cord on Zarah, he was the firstborn and rightful of the throne. K&D Commentary writes, “What a breach hast thou made for thy part? Upon thee the breach;” i.e., thou bearest the blame of the breach. signifies not rupturam perinoei, but breaking through by pressing forward. From that he received the name of Perez (breach, breaker through). Then the other one with the scarlet thread came into the world, and was named Zerah ( exit, rising), because he sought to appear first, whereas in fact Perez was the first-born, and is even placed before Zerah in the lists in Gen_46:12; Num_26:20. Perez was the ancestor of the tribe-prince Nahshon (Num_2:3), and of King David also (Rth_4:18; 1Ch_2:5.). Through him, therefore, Thamar has a place as one of the female ancestors in the genealogy of Jesus Christ.” (Emphasis added). Eventually Pharez was declared the rightful heir, and from him descended the official branch of the Tribe of Judah and the Davidic Royal House. Zara and his descendants reacted to what they, undoubtedly, considered a wrong decision that robbed them of their rightful inheritance!
That they did not accept this ruling becomes very clear when we examine the tribal genealogies as recorded in the Old Testament. These record the main lines of descent from Pharez-Judah for a very long period of time -- but the record of the descendants of Zara-Judah is recorded sporadically, not to the extent of Pharez!
Notice the genealogy of Zarah, “And the sons of Zerah; Zimri, and Ethan, and Heman, and Calcol, and Dara: five of them in all.” (1 Chronicles 2:6).
“And Pethahiah the son of Meshezabeel, of the children of Zerah the son of Judah, was at the king's hand in all matters concerning the people.” (Nehemiah 11:24). Since these genealogies -- and especially those of the chief families in each tribe -- were kept with great care, any omission would indicate that those omitted were NO LONGER in the land when the record was made. In Genesis 46:12, the sons of Zarah are not mentioned in the genealogy. Pharez and his sons are mentioned however. Why aren't they mentioned? As the genealogy of Zara-Judah apparently ceases with the third generation, it naturally follows that most of Zara's descendants (not all) must have left the main body during the time of Israel's captivity in Egypt -- and therefore BEFORE the Exodus. With this mind WHERE, then, did they go if they did not stay with the family of Israel in Egypt?
The sons of Zarah left Egypt soon after arriving there! Since Joseph was in charge of Egypt, this gave the Israelites the freedom to explore, trade and build. During that time there was trade with Egypt and the islands of Greece. Zarah's sons split up with the rest of Israel. Israel went to Goshen, once settled; the sons of Israel were engaged in many activities. History shows that the Zarah-Judah line left Egypt and went to Greece.
The five sons of Zarah were, “Zimri, and Ethan, and Heman, and Calcol, and Dara:” In 1 Kings 4:31 its has, “For he was wiser than all men; than Ethan the Ezrahite, and Heman, and Chalcol, and Darda, the sons of Mahol: and his fame was in all nations round about.” These two names are spelt, “Darda” and “Chalcol,” in the book of Kings, being more Phoenician in language as opposed to the book of Chronicles. Josephus in at least one translation of the Antiquities, in mentioning King Solomon gives Dara's name as "Dardanos." So perhaps Dara and Dardanus were regarded as the same man during the 1st Century AD (Josephus, F (1926) Josephus. Vol. 5: Antiquities: 8:2:5, pp. 593-595. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray).
Two of these can be identified as Cecrops and Dardanus. Two groups that ancient history reveals came from Egypt and migrated to Greece and became the founders of Athens and Troy.
The Trojans
Dardanus was “the ancestor of the Trojan kings…” (The Oxford Classical Dictionary, 3rd ed. p.430). Homer’s Iliad book 20 writes, “In the beginning Dardanus was the son of Jove, and founded Dardania, for Ilius was not yet stablished on the plain for men to dwell in, and her people still abode on the spurs of many fountained Ida. Dardanus had a son, king Erichthonius, who was wealthiest of all men living…Erichthonius begat Tros, king of the Trojans, and Tros had three noble sons, Ilus, Assaracus, and Ganymede who was comeliest of mortal men;” (p.397).
Other Greek writers call Dardanus, “Danaus.” These recognize him as an “Egyptian.” Diodorus Siculus calls him in his in book 17 chapter 50.
Another example, “Danaus, the Egyptian, became king of Argos—types of foreign invasion and conquest” (Isocrates, Panathenaicus, speech 12, section 80).
Again, “…although in former times any barbarians who were in misfortune presumed to be rulers over the Greek cities （for example, Danaus, an exile from Egypt, occupied Argos…)” (Isocrates, Helen, speech 10, section 68).
Lastly Strabo’s, Geography goes into greater detail about the founding of Troy in book 8 chapter 6.
Now some argue that Danaus is called an “Egyptian” and not an Israelite so it cannot be Darda the son of Zerah. But, Joseph and his brothers were called Egyptians as well, Gen 50:11. They lived in Egypt. The dressed like Egyptians and were part of the culture. There is no discrepancy here. Though they were Israelites, they were Egyptians because they lived, dressed and worked in Egypt.
The Book of Ezekiel notes that the tribe of Dan dwelt in "Java" which was called Greece; see Halley's Bible Handbook, p.82. They were trading with Tyre from Greece, see Ezekiel 27:19. Strabo writes, “Danaus, who was the father of fifty daughters, having arrived in Argos inhabited the city of Inachus, and made a law that those who had before borne the name of Pelasgiotæ throughout Greece should be called Danai.’” (book 5 chapter 2). Homer spoke of the “Trojans or Danaans” (book 8). Dr William Smith in his book, The History of Greece says, "Of all the heroic families of Greece, no one was more heroic than that of DANANS OF ARGOS" (p.18, emphasis mine).
The Greek poet Homer says that Dardanus was a son (or descendant) of Zeus [Jove], the chief of the Greek gods (Iliad, book 20). The Roman and Greek legends say that Zeus (called Jupiter in Latin) was a son of Saturn who was also called Kronus. Writing of the Greek gods, Sanchuniathon, a Phoenician historian, says that "Kronus, whom the Phoenicians called Israel, had a son Jehud.” (Cory, I.P. (1876) Cory's Ancient Fragments. London: Reeves & Turner, pp. 21-22.). Thus according to Homer and Sanchuniathon, Dardanus (who founded the Trojan kingdom) was a descendant of Jehud (Judah) whose father was Israel.
“There is evidence that CRETE possessed a high civilization possibly as early as Egypt itself, as is indicated by archaeological finds of both pre-Dynastic and Dynastic types in that island. Crete also had early contacts with GREECE and ASIA MINOR, where many finds testify to the fact, and as is indicated in the similarity of the place-names. There were, for instance, towns named MYCENAE in both Crete and Greece; and a MOUNT IDA was to be found both near Troy and near the Cretan Mycenae. The civilization of Cretan Mycenae, in particular, bore STRIKING RESEMBLANCES to that of the HEBREWS.
“According to a curiously garbled account by the Roman historian Tacitus, the ‘Jews’ were ‘natives of the Isle of Crete’ who derived their name from that of Mount Ida (Judah), well known in ancient history and mythology. This story might well be considered fantastic were it not for the fact that archaeological data, as revealed by the late Sir Arthur Evans, proves that an intimate CULTURAL link existed between the Myceneans and the Israelites.’ It is evident that, although
Tacitus had absorbed an inexplicably false impression as to the origins of the Israelites, there is a substantial element of truth underlying his story…” (The Link, September 1981, emphasis added).
According to the names, and the origin of these peoples being of Egyptian origin, one must consider that the origins of the Greeks are of Israelite stock, especially from the tribe of Dan. The kings of these people looking at the evidence are of the Line of Darda of the Zerah-Judah line.
Chalcol
Now there were a people in ancient Greece called the “Colchians.” Herodotus says these were Egyptians as well, “For it is plain to see that the Colchians are Egyptians; and what I say, I myself noted before I heard it from others. When it occurred to me, I inquired of both peoples; and the Colchians remembered the Egyptians better than the Egyptians remembered the Colchians; the Egyptians said that they considered the Colchians part of Sesostris' army. I myself guessed it, partly because they are dark-skinned and woolly-haired; though that indeed counts for nothing, since other peoples are, too; but my better proof was that the Colchians and Egyptians and Ethiopians are the only nations that have from the first practiced circumcision” (book 2, chapter. 104). First, many people believe that these people were of the Black race, because of Herodotus’ statement that they were “dark skinned and woolly-haired.” But, the term “melanchroes,” is used to describe one who has “flushed cheeks” describing a healthy color as opposed to a pale face. Notice Homer’s Odyssey, “With this, Athena touched him [Odysseus] with her golden wand. A well-washed cloak and a tunic she first of all cast about his breast, and she increased his stature and his youthful bloom. Once more he grew dark of color [melanchroiês], and his cheeks filled out, and dark grew the beard about his chin.” This episode Odysseus would “ no more eaten and drunk as before, nor overseen the fields, but with groaning and wailing he sits and weeps, and the flesh wastes from off his bones.” (Book. 16, 135-185). He deprived himself of food that would make anyone pale. “To Hippocrates the Phasians of Colchis were sallow (ochros) (Aer 15) whilst the complexions of the modern-day Georgian population have been described as ‘fair, sallow or ruddy’ (Lang the Georgians, p.19)” (Herodotus book commentary by Alan B. Loyd, p.22, emphasis added). Interesting how King David was described as “ruddy.” Israelites are described as “ruddy” (1 Sam 16:12; 17:42; Songs 5:10; Lam 4:7). All can be described with reddish hair, “flush” or “rosy” cheeks with “fair eyes” (see Strong’s 119 and 3303 and 5869). One source says, "Ruddy: red; reddish; of the color of healthy skin in white-skinned peoples" (Chambers Concise Dictionary, 1988, p. 932).
The woolly hair, the term ulotrichous meant curly hair. The same commentary says, “Despite the efforts of Armayor and English, there is no linguistic justification for relating this term to Negros.” (ibid. p.22, emphasis added). Many white people have curly as well as straight hair. Most likely it means “bushy” hair like Solomon, “His head is as the most fine gold, his locks are bushy, and black as a raven” (Song 5:11). Many British people have bushy black hair like a raven with blue eyes and a ruddy rosy cheek complexion. But Herodotus said that this was not the main reason why he knew they were Egyptians “that indeed counts for nothing, since other peoples are, too;” But to prove our point, the Colchians do look like the descriptions of the Israelites in the Bible.
The Land of Colchis is in, “…ancient region at the eastern end of the Black Sea south of the Caucasus, in the western part of modern Georgia. It consisted of the valley of the Phasis (modern Riuni) River. In Greek mythology Colchis was the home of Medea and the destination of the Argonauts, a land of fabulous wealth and the domain of sorcery. Historically, Colchis was colonized by Milesian Greeks to whom the native Colchians supplied gold, slaves, hides, linen cloth, agricultural produce, and such shipbuilding materials as timber, flax, pitch, and wax” (article Colchis, Britannica 2001).
Diodorus Siculus writes, “They say also that those who set forth with Danaus, likewise from Egypt, settled what is practically the oldest city in Greece, Argos, and that the nation of the Colchi in Pontus and that of the Jews, which lies between Arabia and Syria, were founded as colonies by certain emigrants from their country; and this is the reason why it is a long-established institution among these two peoples to circumcise their male children, the custom having been brought over from Egypt. Even the Athenians, they say, are colonists from Saïs in Egypt, and they undertake to offer proofs of such a relationship; for the Athenians are the only Greeks who call their city ‘Asty,’ a name brought over from the city Asty in Egypt.” (Book 1, ch. 28, v.2-4). So Diodorus confirms what Herodotus says that these people are of Egyptian origin.
The Colchi dwelt with the Iberians. This name derived from Eber or Hebrews. These Hebrews migrated there by the early migrations of them after leaving Egypt in the time of Joseph.
Now how do we link Athens with the Colchi? To the immediate northeast of Athens lies the great island of Euboea whose great central territory was known as Chalcis. Says historian Will Durant, "Its coastal plains were rich enough to lure Ionians from Attica in the days of the Dorian invasion [ca. 1100 B.C.]" ( The Story of Civilization , Vol. 2, p. 106). So Athenians migrated here.
But the Athenian Chalcians followed another migration pattern as well. We later find them on the Macedonian coast in northern Greece: "Greeks, mostly from Chalcis and Eretria [just south of Chalcis on Euboea], conquered and named the three-fingered peninsula of Chalcidice" (p. 157). East of here, on the Bosporus Straits leading up into the Black Sea, where now sits the Asian side of Istanbul, was established ancient Chalcedon—which was also a colony of Miletus (p. 156). Then, passing into the Black Sea and traveling further east along the length of its southern shore we eventually come to Colchis. So there is a likely migratory pattern linking these areas after all.
Cecrops was the founder of Athens and the first king (see Thucydides, History of the Peloponesian War, book 2, v.15). Being the first king of Athens he is obviously Colchi, of the Royal scepter tribe of Zerah-Judah. Some do not see the connection of Cecrops and Calcol simply by the two names, but the history of the two are similar. Totten explains, “In tracing the history of this family we shall use indiscriminately the various spellings common to the several records, and which are often found to be different even in the same record. There is nothing odd in the fact of these numerous names for each of these celebrated individuals, for we find numberless parallels in modern times. As to the matter of variety in spelling, as for instance Chalcol, Calcol, Dara, Darda, Mahol, Mohul, etc., it was a common thing among the Hebrews; we find a notable case in Abraham and Abram, Bram and Brahma, and as instances of several names for the same individual we need only refer to the cases of Jacob, Joseph and Daniel. Different circumstances gave them different names, and with the change of venue as they wandered from land to land (we refer now particularly to the sons of Zerah or Zarah) they naturally appear with different names without loss of identity. Thus Chalcol or Calcol became Calchis to the Phoenicians, Cecrops to the Greeks and Niul, Niulus, or Nilus to the Egyptians, while his father Mahol was the Scytha and Phaanius of the Phoenicians, and the Fanesia Farsa of the Irish. The reader will understand the matter as he proceeds.” (C.A.L Totten, Our Race, cf, p.173, emphasis added). Colonies of Iberia, Hibernia, Hebrides During the time of those ancient peoples, many of the colonies were called Iberia, Hibernia, Ebro in Spain, and the Hebrides. Before the Exodus from Egypt, the Israelites were more or less collectively called “Hebrews” (Exodus 2, 7, 10; Num 26:45 etc). The similarity of these names cannot go unnoticed. The ancient name of Ireland was “Iberne” which was later abbreviated to “Erne,” Latinized to “Hibernia.” In Spain we find, “Saragossa, capital of Zaragoza province, in the autonomous community (region) of Aragon, northeastern Spain, lying on the south bank of
the Río Ebro” (Britannica article under “Zaragoza” emphasis added). Zaragoza means the “Stronghold of Zerah” lying along the bank of the “Ebro [Hebrew] river.”
The Scepter Not to Depart from Judah
History shows the settlements of these people in the ancient world and how they spread to different places all over the Mediterranean.
Will Durant in his The Story of Civilization writes: "There is nothing more vital in the history of the Greeks than their rapid spread throughout the Mediterranean . . . The migration followed five main lines—Aeolian, Ionian, Dorian, Euxine, Italian . . . The second line [the Ionian line] took its start in the Peloponnesus [southern Greece], whence thousands of Mycenaeans and Achaeans [whom Homer identified with the Danaans] fled . . .
"Some of them settled in Attica [the region of Athens], some in Euboea [the large island northeast of Athens]; many of them moved out into the Cyclades [islands of the Aegean Sea between Greece and Turkey], ventured across the Aegean, and established in western Asia Minor [Turkey] the twelve cities of the Ionian Dodecapolis [including Miletus] . . . The fifth line moved westward to what the Greeks called the Ionian Isles, thence across to Italy and Sicily, and finally to Gaul [France] and Spain . . .
"One by one these colonies took form, until Greece was no longer the narrow peninsula of Homeric days, but a strangely loose association of independent cities scattered from Africa to Thrace [in northern Greece] and from Gibraltar [in southern Spain] to the eastern end of the Black Sea" (Vol. 2, pp. 127-129). The Milesian kings claimed to be descendant of Cecrops who is Calchol of the Bible. Peter Berresford Ellis, one of the foremost Celtic scholars now writing, states in his 2002 book Erin’s Blood Royal: The Gaelic Noble Dynasties of Ireland: "The indigenous Gaelic aristocracy of Ireland is, without doubt, the most ancient in Europe . . . The Irish royal houses have genealogies . . . tracing their descent, generation by generation, from the sons of Golamh, otherwise known as Milesius or Mile Easpain (soldier of Spain), who, according to tradition, invaded Ireland at the end of the second millennium B.C. [a time frame which is problematic, as we will see]. He is regarded as the progenitor of the Gaels" (p. 3). Golamh is Gathelus who was son of Cecrops, Calchol, “THE Scotish men, according to the maner of other nations, estéeming it a glorie to fetch their begining of great anciencie, say that their originall descent cam frō the Gréeks and Aegyptians: for there was (as the old Scotish historiographers haue left in writing) a certeine noble man among the Gréeks, named Gathelus, the sonne of Cecrops, who builded Gathelus. the citie of Athens… Hereof it came to passe, that first in Spaine, after in Ireland, and then in Scotland, the kings which ruled ouer the Scotishmen, receiued the crowne sitting vpon that stone, vntill the time of Robert the first king of Scotland” (Holinshed's Chronicles of Scotland; The History of Scotland, Intro Gathelus).
These Milesian kings before going off to Ireland, met up with the David’s descendants as we shall see later in the booklet, and continued the dynasty of Kings, thus fulfilling the prophecy of Jacob, that the Scepter never departed from Judah. From the time he spoke the prophecy until now, these kings still rule. From the Grecian kings, to the Irish, Scottish, English and others in Europe, the Scepter never departed from Judah!
“Ras Shamra (ancient Ugarit) in Syria in 1929 revealed Phoenician documents supporting much of Sanchuniathon’s information on Phoenician mythology and religious beliefs” ("Sanchuniathon," Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1985, Vol. 10, p. 404). The writings of Sanchuniathon, as we have them, mention the Greek “Kronos, whom the Phoenicians call Israel,” proving our point to separate the fact from the fiction which this historian has done. The Milesian invasion of Ireland also thought to have been fiction, now “…does fit with what we know of the movements of the historic Celts during the first millennium B.C. Some of the Celtic people were settled in the Iberian Peninsula from early times. Greek and Phoenician traders attest to that fact as do the Romans in the third century B.C. Stories of Celtic wanderers in Egypt, serving as mercenaries to the Pharaohs, are also historically documented. Mil Easpains [Milesian’s] wife Scota, the daughter of Pharaoh Nectanebus, and there were two Pharaohs of that name” (Eyewitness to Irish History, by Peter Berresford, p.12).
Divine Right of Kings
The Royal Houses in Europe intermarried extensively. The term "divine right of kings" stemmed from the former awareness of Jacob's and Nathan's prophecy about Judah and David whose descendants were literally given a "divine right" to rule by God.
The Encyclopedia Britannica states concerning the Divine Right of Kings: "The principle that the kingship is DESCENDIBLE
IN ONE SACRED
FAMILY...is not only still that of the British Constitution as that of
ALL MONARCHIAL
STATES...not only that 'legitimate monarchs derive their authority from...God alone, BUT
THAT THIS AUTHORITY IS
BY DIVINE ORDINANCE
HEREDITARY IN A CERTAIN
ORDER OF SUCESSION"
(Under "King" subhead 'Divine
Right of Kings," p.394, emphasis mine)
Now, many believe that all these historical findings about the invasion of the Danaans to Ireland and the Milesians, and their kings are all based on myth and not fact. But, one must separate the fact from the fiction. It should be realized that some ancient myths about the “gods” were actually rooted in stories about real people. In fact, many pagan religions began, in part, as ancestor and hero worship (see Thomas Bulfinch, Bulfinch’s Mythology, "Stories of God’s and Heroes," chap. 25: "Origin of Mythology," 1855, 1979).
With that in mind, it is rather surprising to discover what the ancient Phoenician historian Sanchuniathon (or Sanchoniatho)—who is believed to have lived around the 1200s B.C. (though some put him a few centuries later)—had to say about the identity of Cronus. But first it should be recognized that all material from Sanchuniathon "is derived from the works of Philo of Byblos (flourished AD 100), who claimed to have translated his Phoenicia from the original text. The authenticity of that claim has been questioned, but excavations at
Even the invasion of Ireland by the Tuatha de Danaan some have speculated. MacManus writes, “De Jubainville denies a De Danann race to Ireland. He asserts they were mythological. AlacNeill agrees with him. But many students of the question disagree with both of these able men. The fact that myths grow around great people must not lead us to conclude that the people were mythical. Fortunately Fionn and his Fian fell within historical time when actual facts, countering the myths that have gathered around them, were set down; otherwise, by the same process of reasoning, they might have been classed with the De Danann as an entirely imaginary people.” (The Story of the Irish Race, p.1 footnote). One cannot dismiss the Danaans as mythical. There is to much historical evidence to the contrary in the ancient sources as some authors have said. (See Author James Bonwick, Who Are the Irish p.27).
Another argument some make is that how can these kings exist centuries before, when it is said that Solomon, “…excelled the wisdom of all the children of the east country, and all the wisdom of Egypt.
“For he was wiser than all men; than Ethan the Ezrahite, and Heman, and Chalcol, and Darda, the sons of Mahol: and his fame was in all nations round about.” (1 Kings: 4:30-31). Some suggest that how can these exist at the same time as Solomon if history shows them existing long before Solomon? But, “It is very doubtful whether the names mentioned presently are those of contemporaries” (Pulpit Commentary). It is shown that this list and the list in 1 Chronicles 2:6, “…represent the same persons, and if so, these four sages were the ‘sons’ of Zerah, the son of Judah. (Gen_38:30)…. The resemblance, however, of Ezrahite (ytirza) to Zerahite (ytirz) is so close as to suggest identity rather than difference…We may therefore allow that the four names may be those of sons (i.e., descendants) of Zerah” (ibid). Therefore, it would appear that the "sons" of Zerah in 1 Chronicles 2:6 must actually mean the descendants of Zerah—which is common usage of the word "sons" in the Bible. And "five of them in all" must mean that among the extended "family of the Zarhites" (Numbers 26:20) there were five who were spoken of together as having a great reputation for wisdom and accomplishment. That Solomon is noted to have outclassed them speaks volumes about them as well. They were undoubtedly internationally famous people who had carried out great exploits.
The Davidic Covenant
Almighty God chose David to be his shepherd over Israel. Since David was so faithful to God, and loved the Lord, God made a covenant with him. 2 Samuel 7, Nathan the prophet told David, “Also the LORD telleth thee that he will make thee an house.
“And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.
“He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.
“I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:
“But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee.
“And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.
“According to all these words, and according to all this vision, so did Nathan speak unto David. (vv.11-17). The throne of David is also called the "Throne of Yahweh" (1 Chron 29:23). Now God promised that David’s seed would sit on the throne forever. God uses words like “his,” “son,” “him,” in the singular. Many feel that this can only mean Solomon. But, then God uses “seed” and “House” which mean “family” “bayith” (Strong’s 1004), and “posterity” “zera” (Strong’s2233). Clearly descendants are meant in these passages. God means that the throne can only be occupied by one king at a time who are the descendants of David.
The K&D Commentary writes, “The threefold repetition of the expression ‘for ever,’ the establishment of the kingdom and throne of David for ever, points incontrovertibly beyond the time of Solomon, and to the eternal continuance of the seed of David. The word seed denotes the posterity of a person, which may consist either in one son or in several children, or in a long line of successive generations. The idea of a number of persons living at the same time, is here precluded by the context of the promise, as only one of David's successors could sit upon the throne at a time. On the other hand, the idea of a number of descendants following one another, is evidently contained in the promise, that God would not withdraw His favour from the seed, even if it went astray, as He had done from Saul, since this implies that even in that case the throne should be transmitted from father to son. There is still more, however, involved in the expression ‘for ever.’ When the promise was given that the throne of the kingdom of David should continue ‘to eternity,’ an eternal duration was also promised to the seed that should occupy this throne, just as in 2Sa 7:16 the house and kingdom of David are spoken of as existing for ever, side by side. We must not reduce the idea of eternity to the popular notion of a long incalculable period, but must take it in an absolute sense, as the promise is evidently understood in Psa 89:30 : ‘I set his seed for ever, and this throne as the days of heaven.’…The posterity of David, therefore, could only last for ever by running out in a person who lives for ever, i.e., by culminating in the Messiah, who lives for ever, and of whose kingdom there is no end. The promise consequently refers to the posterity of David, commencing with Solomon and closing with Christ: so that by the ‘seed’ we are not to understand Solomon alone, with the kings who succeeded him, nor Christ alone, to the exclusion of Solomon and the earthly kings of the family of David; nor is the allusion to Solomon and Christ to be regarded as a double allusion to two different objects.” (Emphasis added). Jesus is coming to “the throne of his father David” (Luke 1:32). It’s an existing throne! If it did not exist, God would not of mentioned it!
There are three other prophecies that establish the promise to David that confirms that this throne exist on this earth today!
“I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant,
“Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations. Selah
“Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.
“My mercy will I keep for him for evermore, and my covenant shall stand fast with him.
“His seed also will I make to endure for ever, and his throne as the days of heaven.
“If his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments;
“If they break my statutes, and keep not my commandments;
“Then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes.
“Nevertheless my lovingkindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail.
“My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.
“Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David.
“His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me.
“It shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven. Selah” (Psalm 89:3-4, 27-37).
“Thus saith the LORD; If ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season;
“Then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers.
“As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured: so will I multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levites that minister unto me.
“Moreover the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, saying,
“Considerest thou not what this people have spoken, saying, The two families which the LORD hath chosen, he hath even cast them off? thus they have despised my people, that they should be no more a nation before them.
“Thus saith the LORD; If my covenant be not with day and night, and if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth;
“Then will I cast away the seed of Jacob, and David my servant, so that I will not take any of his seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: for I will cause their captivity to return, and have mercy on them.” (Jeremiah 33:20-26).
“Ought ye not to know that the LORD God of Israel gave the kingdom over Israel to David for ever, even to him and to his sons by a covenant of salt?” (2 Chron 13:5).
Notice these points God makes about David and his Throne:
1. The throne was to be established forever
2. If he sins God will chasten him but the throne will continue to exist, so it cannot be talking about Jesus Christ
3. There will always be a son to sit on David's throne unto "all generations," so it is not talking about one person but a whole DYNASTY OF KINGS.
4. And as long as the sun and the moon continue in their seasons, there will always be one of David's seed to sit on his throne.
5. David's seed would multiply into a huge family and dynasty.
6. They would rule over the seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
7. Notice God uses the word “their” and “children” when he spoke of the “rod” to chastise his descendants. The same language used by Nathan in 2 Samuel. So it meant the descendants of David that occupied the throne, not just Solomon.
8. The kingdom was given to David’s “sons” as a covenant of “salt.” This means, “That is, a perpetual one, which was inviolable, and never to be made void; called so, because salt preserves from corruption and putrefaction” (Gill Commentary). Numbers 18:19 also confirms the meaning of the “covenant of salt.”
If you have read our book, the USA and Britain in Prophecy, then you know that the British and
Americans and the peoples of Northwestern Europe are the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. So the question is, is the throne of David, the throne that Queen Elizabeth sits on today? Are all the Kings and Queens of Europe, descendants of David? You will find proof in this booklet, that both answers can be answered with an absolute Yes!
Jeremiah's Commission
God raised up a very special prophet whose real call and commission few indeed understand. This prophet was Jeremiah. This vital yet little known call and commission is described in the opening verse of the first chapter of the book of Jeremiah: “See, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to plant.” (Jeremiah 1:10). Jeremiah was set over NATIONS- more than one kingdom. He was Jewish living in Judah. He was set over Judah-but not Judah alone. Over nations and Kingdoms! He was set over these kingdoms to do two things: First to "pluck up" or to "root out," to "pull down," and second to "BUILD AND TO PLANT." It is well known that Jeremiah was used to warn Judah of the impending captivity, and the "pulling down," of the throne of David in the kingdom of Judah!
"As I live, saith the LORD, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah were the signet upon my right hand, yet would I pluck thee thence;" (Jer 22:24). Notice God "plucked" Coniah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah out of his throne, the throne of David!

The Throne of David in Prophecy
By Peter Salemi

"Thus saith YHWH, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah" (verse 30). So far as the throne of David is concerned, Coniah's children would not sit on his throne. This throne would go to someone else!
During this time, this time of turmoil, the Psalmist thought: "Thou hast made void the covenant of thy servant: thou hast profaned his crown by casting it to the ground" (Psalm 89:39). God's honor and faithfulness was at stake, but note it! See it in your own bible. Jeremiah was commission to pull down to destroy, to BUILD AND TO PLANT. He was to plant the throne that he pulled down IN Judah, and plant it somewhere else! Where would it go? As we have seen the sons of David would never cease to be "...rulers [PLURAL] over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" (Jer 33:26). This throne was to be planted over the HOUSE OF ISRAEL and NOT over the HOUSE OF JUDAH anymore! But also notice that Jeremiah's commission was to plant the throne over the "nations" and over the "kingdoms" plural! This throne was to be planted over the NATIONS OF ISRAEL! The great Commonwealth of Nations who have one head of state, the throne of David. The Northwestern Europeans, who are part of the Lost Ten Tribes of Israel, their kings and queens all descend from David as we shall see.
But who was the successor to this throne that God said Coniah's children would not sit on?
"Zedekiah was one and twenty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned eleven years in
Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Hamutal the daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah" (Jer 52:1).
Zedekiah was the last recorded king of Judah in Secular as well as biblical history.
Now notice the final tearing down of the throne of David: "In the ninth year of Zedekiah king of Judah, in the tenth month, came Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon and all his army against Jerusalem, and they besieged it.
"And in the eleventh year of Zedekiah, in the fourth month, the ninth day of the month, the city was broken up.
"And all the princes of the king of Babylon came in, and sat in the middle gate, even Nergalsharezer, Samgarnebo, Sarsechim, Rabsaris, Nergalsharezer, Rabmag, with all the residue of the princes of the king of Babylon.
"And it came to pass, that when Zedekiah the king of Judah saw them, and all the men of war, then they fled, and went forth out of the city by night, by the way of the king's garden, by the gate betwixt the two walls: and he went out the way of the plain.
"But the Chaldeans' army pursued after them, and overtook Zedekiah in the plains of Jericho: and when they had taken him, they brought him up to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon to Riblah in the land of Hamath, where he gave judgment upon him.
"Then the king of Babylon slew the sons of Zedekiah in Riblah before his eyes: also the king of
Babylon slew all the nobles of Judah.
"Moreover he put out Zedekiah's eyes, and bound him with chains, to carry him to Babylon.
"Then he put out the eyes of Zedekiah; and the king of Babylon bound him in chains, and carried him to Babylon, and put him in prison till the day of his death" (Jer 39:1-7; 52:11).
These passages bring out these points:
1. The king of Babylon killed all the sons of Zedekiah who were heirs to the throne of David.
2. He also slew the nobles of Judah so as to leave no possible heirs to the throne.
3. Finally, after putting out Zedekiah's eyes, the king who sat on David's throne was himself taken to Babylon where he died.
4. Thus it appears, and as the whole world has believed, the throne of David ceased, with no possible heirs, or sons to keep the dynasty alive. Certainly from that day on, the throne never again existed IN Judah, IN Jerusalem, OR among the Jews!
Jeconiah? One of Jeconiah's sons was Salathial., who was father of Zorobabel, the son of the royal seed through whom Jesus Christ himself traced his royal ancestry back to David (Matthew 1:12). And Zorobabel, was the man God caused Cyrus, the king of Persia, to make a decree giving him GOVENORSHIP, NOT THE CROWN OF A KING-to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the house of God. Yet neither Jeconiah or his sons, or grandsons ever reigned as king in Judah again, why?
Why wasn't the throne restored? Because God would not allow it to prosper IN Judah anymore as Jeremiah prophesied: "As I live, saith YHWH, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim king of
Judah were the signet upon my right hand, yet would I pluck thee thence;...Thus saith YHWH, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah" (Jer 22:24, 30). His seed and throne would not prosper in Judah. God was planning to overturn this throne to another place, IN ISRAEL. The throne was also according to the passages above overturned to another part of David's family. Since it did not belong to Coniah's family anymore who does it belong to? As we have seen, "Zedekiah was one and twenty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Hamutal the daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah" (Jer 52:1). Zedekiah's seed was the rightful heir to the throne of David. But wait! All of his sons were killed?
How can the throne and line of David continue?
Zedekiah's Daughters (The Second Part of Jeremiah's Commission)
The King of Babylon didn't realize that in the law of God, when there are no more male heirs, that the female descendants are the rightful heirs to anything that their father has left them: "And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a man die, and have no son, then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter" (Num 27:8). The inheritance of the throne of David went to Zedekiah's daughters!
After the invasion by Babylon, Jeremiah was free to go where ever he wanted. This freedom that the king of Babylon gave him was the one thing that made him carry out the second half of his commission, to plant the throne of David over the house of Israel: "And the captain of the guard took Jeremiah, and said unto him, YHWH thy God hath pronounced this evil upon this place.
"Now YHWH hath brought it, and done according as he hath said: because ye have sinned against YHWH, and have not obeyed his voice, therefore this thing is come upon you.
"And now, behold, I loose thee this day from the chains which were upon thine hand. If it seem good unto thee to come with me into Babylon, come; and I will look well unto thee: but if it seem ill unto thee to come with me into Babylon, forbear: behold, all the land is before thee: whither it seemeth good and convenient for thee to go, thither go.
"Now while he was not yet gone back, he said, Go back also to Gedaliah the son of Ahikam the son of Shaphan, whom the king of Babylon hath made governor over the cities of Judah, and dwell with him among the people: or go wheresoever it seemeth convenient unto thee to go. So the captain of the guard gave him victuals and a reward, and let him go" (Jer 40:2-5).
So Jeremiah was free to go wherever he wanted, and free to do whatever he wanted, supplied even with expense money, so he can perform the second half of his commission.
We now come to an amazing part of the book of Jeremiah, which has been almost entirely overlooked.
"Then went Jeremiah unto Gedaliah the son of Ahikam to Mizpah; and dwelt with him among the people that were left in the land" (verse 6).
Now this Gedeliah had been made governor over the remnant of the Jews in the land by the king of Babylon, and since Jerusalem was destroyed, he had made Mizpah his headquarters. But the king of Ammon plotted with a Jew named Ishmael to assasinate Gedeliah. The plot was executed; the govenor and part of the Jews were slain. Jeremiah was one of the survivors.
"Then Ishmael carried away captive all the residue of the people that were in Mizpah, even the king's daughters, and all the people that remained in Mizpah, whom Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard had committed to Gedaliah the son of Ahikam: and Ishmael the son of Nethaniah carried them away captive, and departed to go over to the Ammonites" (Jer 41:10).
DID YOU CATCH THAT! Read that passage again! Among these Jews were the King's daughters! Daughters of Zedekiah, King of Judah, of David's Dynasty!
King Zedekiah had died in prison in Babylon (Jer 52:11). All his sons have been killed. All the nobles of Judah were killed as well. All possible heirs to the throne of David were killed except the KING'S DAUGHTER'S! Now we see why Jeremiah went to Mizpah! The heirs were still there, even though the throne was torn down, and governors were set over Judah. But now Jeremiah was going to take this heir ACCORDING TO GOD'S LAW (Num 27:8) to the Throne of David, and Plant it somewhere else and receive the position of power once again, only this time it will rule over the HOUSE OF ISRAEL!
Jeremiah Escapes
Soon a man named Johanan replaced Ishmael as leader. They went to Egypt and sojourned there:
"But Johanan the son of Kareah, and all the captains of the forces, took all the remnant of Judah, that were returned from all nations, whither they had been driven, to dwell in the land of Judah;
"Even men, and women, and children, and the king's daughters, and every person that Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard had left with Gedaliah the son of Ahikam the son of Shaphan, and Jeremiah the prophet, and Baruch the son of Neriah.
"So they came into the land of Egypt: for they obeyed not the voice of YHWH: thus came they even to Tahpanhes" (Jer 43:5-7).
On reaching Egypt, God warned these Jews again through Jeremiah that they should die there by the sword and famine because "They are not humbled even unto this day, neither have they feared, nor walked in my law, nor in my statutes, that I set before you and before your fathers.
"Therefore thus saith YHWH of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will set my face against you for evil, and to cut off all Judah.
“And I will take the remnant of Judah, that have set their faces to go into the land of Egypt to sojourn there, and they shall all be consumed, and fall in the land of Egypt; they shall even be consumed by the sword and by the famine: they shall die, from the least even unto the greatest, by the sword and by the famine: and they shall be an execration, and an astonishment, and a curse, and a reproach.
"For I will punish them that dwell in the land of Egypt, as I have punished Jerusalem, by the sword, by the famine, and by the pestilence:
"So that none of the remnant of Judah, which are gone into the land of Egypt to sojourn there, shall escape or remain, that they should return into the land of Judah, to the which they have a desire to return to dwell there: for none shall return but such as shall escape" (Jer 44:10-14). Yes
the few who obeyed God, and did not want to go to Egypt would escape, for Jeremiah warned them before and they would not listen (see Jer 42:15-16; 43:2-4).
The people who would escape were Jeremiah, Baruch, and the King's daughters. For there was a divine mission to be performed: "Yet a small number that escape the sword shall return out of the land of Egypt into the land of Judah, and all the remnant of Judah, that are gone into the land of Egypt to sojourn there, shall know whose words shall stand, mine, or theirs" (Jer 44:28).
Jeremiah and the king's daughters would go back to Jerusalem for reasons explained later. Jeremiah by ship would go back to Judah to pick up a few things that would be very important for our time today. These things would identify and testify that God's word is true!
Under Divine Protection
Baruch was Jeremiah's constant companion and secretary. It is important to note here God's promise of protection to him: "Thus saith YHWH, the God of Israel, unto thee, O Baruch;
"Thou didst say, Woe is me now! for YHWH hath added grief to my sorrow; I fainted in my sighing, and I find no rest.
“Thus shalt thou say unto him, YHWH saith thus; Behold, that which I have built will I break down, and that which I have planted I will pluck up, even this whole land.
"And seekest thou great things for thyself? seek them not: for, behold, I will bring evil upon all flesh, saith YHWH: but thy life will I give unto thee for a prey in all places whither thou goest" (Jer 45:2-5). Baruch's life like Jeremiah's was under divine protection.
Previously God told Jeremiah: "YHWH said, Verily it shall be well with thy remnant; verily I will cause the enemy to entreat thee well in the time of evil and in the time of affliction.
"Shall iron break the northern iron and the steel?
"Thy substance and thy treasures will I give to the spoil without price, and that for all thy sins, even in all thy borders.
"And I will make thee to pass with thine enemies into a land which thou knowest not..." (Jer 15:11-14). DID YOU READ THAT! Jeremiah was to go to a land that he has NEVER BEEN BEFORE! And he was to take Baruch and the King's daughters with him to that place, and plant the throne of David!
Isaiah completes this prophecy about Jeremiah's destiny: "For out of Jerusalem shall go forth a remnant, and they that escape out of mount Zion: the zeal of the LORD of hosts shall do this. And the remnant that is escaped of the house of Judah shall again take root downward, and bear fruit upward:" (Isaiah 37:32, 31). This describes Jeremiah's commission in the book of Jeremiah as well.
They were to go to Jerusalem to pick up some sacred objects, and then head to the land they had never been before, to "build and to plant" the throne of David. This prophecy can also be found in 2 Kings 19:30-31.
What Happened in Egypt?
Before Jeremiah left Egypt to go to Judah, what happened in Egypt, while they stayed there for "two years" (JFB Commentary on the Whole Bible, vol.1, p.1070)?
The Jewish remnant journeyed into Egypt "as far as Tahpanhes" (43:7)—to "Pharaoh’s house" there (verse 9). Notice this from the famous British pioneer archaeologist and Egyptologist Flinders Petrie, who discovered the site in 1886: "Tahpanhes was an important garrison, and as the Jews fled there it must have been close to the frontier. It is thus clear that it was the Greek Daphnae, the modern Tell Defneh, which is on the road to Palestine . . .
"Of this," he continues, "an echo comes across the long ages; the fortress mound is known as Qasr Bint el Yehudi, the palace of the Jew’s daughter. It is named Qasr , as a palace, not Qala , a fortress. It is not named Tell Bint el Yehudi, as it would be if were called so after it were a ruinous heap. Qasr is a name which shows its descent from the time of . . . habitation for nobility and not merely for troops. So through the long ages of Greek and Roman and Arab there has come down the memory of the royal residence for the king’s daughters from the wreck of Jerusalem" ( Egypt and Israel , 1911, pp. 85-86; see also "Daphne," Encyclopaedia Britannica , 14th ed., Vol. 7, p. 48).
Yet there certainly were many troops there as well. Petrie states: "Psamtik [Pharaoh Psammetichus I, founder of Egypt’s 26th dynasty of which Hophra was the fourth king] guarded the frontiers of Egypt with three strong garrisons, placing the Ionian and Carian mercenaries especially at the Pelusian Daphnae . . . in the northeast, from which quarter the most formidable enemies were likely to appear" (p. 40, emphasis added).
These were Greek forces primarily from the west coast of Asia Minor (modern Turkey). "Ionian" and "Carian" primarily designated the Greek city of Miletus there: "Within Egypt itself, normally hostile to any foreign settlement, the Greeks gained a foothold . . . About 650 [B.C.] the Milesians [from Miletus] opened a ‘factory,’ or trading post, at Naucratis on the Canopic branch of the Nile. Pharaoh Psamtik I tolerated them because they made good mercenaries, while their commerce provided rich prey for his collectors of customs revenues" (Will Durant, The Story of Civilization , Vol. 2: The Life of Greece , 1966, p. 173). Suffice it to say many of these "Greek" forces in Egypt were not so unrelated to the Jews taking refuge with them. There was evidently a kinship going way back to the time of the exodus and beyond.
Yet this arrangement was not to last. "The Greeks continued to play a prominent role during the reigns of Psammeticus II and Apries (the Pharaoh Hophra of Jeremiah). Under the latter, however, a national movement among the Egyptians led to a revolt [ca. 570 B.C.] against the [Egyptian] king and the Greek element, with the result that the throne passed to the general Amasis (Ahmosis II), who withdrew the Greeks from Daphnai" (Chamber’s Encyclopedia , 1959, Vol. 5)—evidently expelling many of them whom he considered loyal to Hophra.
Adding to the need for expulsion was the fact that although Ahmose confined the remaining Greek mercenaries near his capital, making many of them part of a royal guard, "an element within Egyptian culture . . . resisted this; and the presence of foreigners in Egypt, both as
invaders and settlers, led to the rise of a nationalism" that wanted the foreigners out ("Egypt," Encyclopaedia Britannica , Macropaedia, Vol. 18, 1985, p. 165; "Ahmose II," Micropaedia, Vol. 1, p. 168).
It was now about 16 years after the fall of Jerusalem, and up to this point things had apparently gone rather well in Egypt for those who had fled there. But God had warned of the calamity to befall Hophra (Jeremiah 44:30). And He had warned the Jewish remnant seeking refuge in Egypt that they would be consumed there (verse 27). Clearly, then, the turn of events was from Him. The Egyptians drove many of the Greco-Israelite mercenaries from the country. And most of the Jewish remnant was probably slaughtered around this time, if not in the uprising then probably in Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion of Egypt two years later in 568 B.C., which laid waste most of the Nile valley. God promised Jeremiah and his party that they would be saved because they obeyed him. Jeremiah must have left with the Milesians who got expelled from the country by the Egyptians!
The Bible says that the remnant went back to Judah (Jer 44:28). There Jeremiah got a few objects from the temple, and from there left Palestine. Jeremiah was commissioned to replant the throne of David again. He gives us a clue where it would be planted, “For thus saith the LORD; David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel;” (33:17). The House of Israel! Jeremiah left and went to the dwelling place of the House of Israel. With the expelled Milesians, Jeremiah went with them to a new home. The Milesians dwelt in Spain. Afterwards, the Milesians invaded Ireland! It is in Ireland that the Throne of David was planted!
Before we get into the historical proof of this, Ezekiel’s parable also provides us with further proof that the throne was to be planted in Israel, the house of Israel, not Judah!
The Parable of Ezekiel
Ezekiel 17 has an interesting parable that speaks about the throne of David, and the transfer of that throne into another land.
Ezekiel writes, “And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
“Son of man, put forth a riddle, and speak a parable unto the house of Israel;
“And say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; A great eagle with great wings, longwinged, full of feathers, which had divers colours, came unto Lebanon, and took the highest branch of the cedar:
“He cropped off the top of his young twigs, and carried it into a land of traffick; he set it in a city of merchants.
“He took also of the seed of the land, and planted it in a fruitful field; he placed it by great waters, and set it as a willow tree.
“And it grew, and became a spreading vine of low stature, whose branches turned toward him, and the roots thereof were under him: so it became a vine, and brought forth branches, and shot forth sprigs.
“There was also another great eagle with great wings and many feathers: and, behold, this vine did bend her roots toward him, and shot forth her branches toward him, that he might water it by the furrows of her plantation.
“It was planted in a good soil by great waters, that it might bring forth branches, and that it might bear fruit, that it might be a goodly vine.
“Say thou, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Shall it prosper? shall he not pull up the roots thereof, and cut off the fruit thereof, that it wither? it shall wither in all the leaves of her spring, even without great power or many people to pluck it up by the roots thereof.
“Yea, behold, being planted, shall it prosper? shall it not utterly wither, when the east wind toucheth it? it shall wither in the furrows where it grew.
“Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
“Say now to the rebellious house, Know ye not what these things mean? tell them, Behold, the king of Babylon is come to Jerusalem, and hath taken the king thereof, and the princes thereof, and led them with him to Babylon;
“And hath taken of the king's seed, and made a covenant with him, and hath taken an oath of him: he hath also taken the mighty of the land:
“That the kingdom might be base, that it might not lift itself up, but that by keeping of his covenant it might stand.
“But he rebelled against him in sending his ambassadors into Egypt, that they might give him horses and much people. Shall he prosper? shall he escape that doeth such things? or shall he break the covenant, and be delivered?
“As I live, saith the Lord GOD, surely in the place where the king dwelleth that made him king, whose oath he despised, and whose covenant he brake, even with him in the midst of Babylon he shall die.
“Neither shall Pharaoh with his mighty army and great company make for him in the war, by casting up mounts, and building forts, to cut off many persons:
“Seeing he despised the oath by breaking the covenant, when, lo, he had given his hand, and hath done all these things, he shall not escape.
“Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; As I live, surely mine oath that he hath despised, and my covenant that he hath broken, even it will I recompense upon his own head.
“And I will spread my net upon him, and he shall be taken in my snare, and I will bring him to Babylon, and will plead with him there for his trespass that he hath trespassed against me.
“And all his fugitives with all his bands shall fall by the sword, and they that remain shall be scattered toward all winds: and ye shall know that I the LORD have spoken it.
“Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will also take of the highest branch of the high cedar, and will set it; I will crop off from the top of his young twigs a tender one, and will plant it upon an high mountain and eminent:
“In the mountain of the height of Israel will I plant it: and it shall bring forth boughs, and bear fruit, and be a goodly cedar: and under it shall dwell all fowl of every wing; in the shadow of the branches thereof shall they dwell.
“And all the trees of the field shall know that I the LORD have brought down the high tree, have exalted the low tree, have dried up the green tree, and have made the dry tree to flourish: I the LORD have spoken and have done it.” (17:1-24).
Notice first that this prophetic parable was NOT address to Judah, the Jews, but to the HOUSE OF ISRAEL! It is a message to give light to the ten tribe house of Israel in these latter days!
First Ezekiel was told to speak a riddle, then a parable. The riddle is found in verses 3 to10. Then in verse 11, Yahweh explains its meaning. "Say now to the rebellious house, Know ye not what these things mean? Tell them..." and then the riddle is clearly explained.
"The great eagle" that went to "Lebanon" and took the "highest branch of the cedar" is explained as to represent king Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon who came to Jerusalem and took captive the king of Judah, Jeconiah (the highest branch of the cedar). The "cropping" off of the "young twigs" and carrying them to the land of traffic is explained to picture the captivity of the king’s sons.
"He also took the seed of the land"(v.5). “NEB ‘a native seed’ i.e. Zedekiah whom Nebuchadnezzar appointed to govern Judah”(International Bible commentary F.F. Bruce, p.824). The "willow tree" that was "low in stature" means, "Although the Davidic dynasty survived the exile, it was not the noble, tall cedar it had been" (JFB Commentary on the Whole Bible, p.1124). Also it’s a “…reference of the lowly status of Zedekiah as the Babylonian king’s vassal” (International Bible commentary F.F. Bruce, p.824).
Now the second eagle is the Pharaoh of Egypt. The vine (v.7) is "Zedekiah to turn his allegiance to Egypt" (ibid, p.1125). "Shall it prosper?" God says no (verses 9, 15-21). Thus the riddle covers the FIRST HALF OF JEREMIAH'S COMMISSION.
Now, notice what is revealing about the second part-the PLANTING OF DAVID'S THRONE! It comes in the parable (verses 22-24): "...I will take the HIGHEST BRANCH OF THE HIGH CEDAR." From God's own explanation earlier in the riddle, we learned that "...the whole tree probably represents the Davidic line..." (Ibid, p.1125).
The riddle told us that Nebuchadnezzar took the highest branch of the cedar-the King. The parable now tells us that GOD-not Nebuchadnezzar will take of the highest branch. Not THE branch, but OF the branch-of Zedekiah's children. We understand it to mean Zedekiah’s children because the scene has shifted to focus on him from vv.5-21. So the context of vv.22-24 is on Zedekiah the cedar tree being a descendant of David. But wait, as we have read earlier in the book of Jeremiah, Nebuchadnezzar took and killed Zedekiah's sons? Let's read on.
God, through Jeremiah, is now going to take the highest branch of the cedar and "SET IT" (v.22)."I will crop off from the top of his young twigs a tender one, and will plant it upon an high mountain and eminent:" What does this mean?
The "young twigs" in the riddle said that these were the SONS of Jeconiah. Notice, the word for “young twigs” in verse 4 is yenıyqah (Strong’s 3242), is only found in this passage in the whole Bible.
However, the “young twigs” in verse 22 is “yoneqeth” (Strong’s 3127) in the feminine. In fact, the grammatical structure of the text of verse 22, the words, "branch", "the high", "its" (the cedars) and "twigs" are feminine whereas the masculine could have been used in each case.
Strong’s says, “Feminine of H3126; a sprout: - (tender) branch, young twig.” Since it’s in the plural, there are two, and since it’s in the feminine, then they are females, and God chose the “tender one.” This word “tender” [Heb. rak Strong’s 7390] can mean either male or female, see Deuteronomy 28:54, 56. This word is usually associated with one who is “young.” “And David said, Solomon my son is young and tender” (1 Chronicles 22:5; 29:1; 2 Chronicles 13:7). So out of the two daughters the younger was to be picked. Jeremiah was with the “king’s daughters.” (Jer 43:6).
Could symbolic language be plainer? This young Jewish princess is to become the Royal seed for planting again DAVID'S THRONE! But where? "...upon a mountain and eminent." A Mountain is always symbolic of a great kingdom or nation, see Daniel 2:35, 44-45.
Which nation? "In the mountain of the HEIGHT OF ISRAEL WILL I PLANT IT," answers God! David's throne was to be planted in Israel, since God would not allow it to prosper in Judah anymore. This, also had to be Zedekiah's daughter, not Jeconiah's family because his sons were not to inherit the throne of David any longer, (Jer 22:29-30)."...and under it [the tender twig] shall dwell all fowl of every wing; in the shadow of the branches thereof shall they dwell" (v.23). This symbol of the fowls is the "nations of the world shall find shelter under the branches of the grand cedar (Dan 4:10-12, 22)" (ibid, p.1126).
Some try to interpret the tender twig as Christ. But Christ is called the “The Branch.” This twig is taking “of the highest branch” (v.22).
In Isaiah 53:2, the same word is used, “a tender plant,” (Strong’s 3126). But it’s in the masculine. The feminine is used for Ezekiel 17:22.
Also, this is Zedekiah’s child, and Christ did not descend from Zedekiah’s line (Matthew 1 and Luke 1). Though Jesus is called a “tender plant” he does not apply to this prophecy. Now, in verse 24, who are the "high tree" and the "low tree"?
Ezekiel’s Prophecy (Three Overturns)
There is another interesting prophecy in Ezekiel 21:25-27, and it says, "And thou, profane wicked prince [ruler] of Israel, whose day is come, when iniquity shall have an end,
"Thus saith YHWH GOD; Remove the diadem, and take off the crown: this shall not be the same: exalt him that is low, and abase him that is high.
"I will overturn, overturn, overturn, it: and it shall be no more, until he come whose right it is; and I will give it him"
Let's understand this clearly. "Remove the diadem, and take off the crown." King Zedekiah of
David's dynasty had the crown. It was to be removed. He died in Babylon. So were his sons and the nobles of Judah.
"This shall not be the same." The crown was not to cease, but a CHANGE is to take place-the throne was to be overturned-another is to wear the crown.
"Exalt him [male not a female] that is low, and abase him that is high." Who is "high?" King
Zedekiah of Judah! He was to be abased, and loose the crown. Who is the "low?" THE ZARAH-JUDAH LINE! The line of Zarah was low for many centuries, now they will be exalted to world
Domination, just like David's line was at the golden age of Israel, or as the historians call it, the
Golden Age of Phoenicia.
"I will overturn, overturn, overturn it: and it shall be no more [overturned], until he who comes whose right it is; and I will give it to him." The rendering of this is correct as J.H. Allen in his book Judah' Scepter and Joseph's Birthright puts it: "So it shall be no more OVERTURNED. How could God give "IT" MEANING THE THRONE "TO HIM" IF THE THRONE WAS NON-EXISTENT? So the context of scripture is correct. "IT shall be no more [overturned]. The one who has the right to the throne AFTER THE THREE OVERTURNS is none other than Jesus Christ, see Isaiah 9:7; Luke 1:32.
The First Overturn and the Annals of Ireland
As we have examined in history, the Milesians left Egypt and went to their colony in Spain. Milesians history reveals that they had some royal company with them. Jeremiah, Simon Baruch and the king’s daughters were on those Milesian ships as well. Afterward the Milesians invaded Ireland, and they went with them. It is in Ireland that the first overturn, and the throne of David was planted in the mountain of Israel!
MacManus proves from the old legends of Ireland: “The legendary account of the origin of the Gaels and their coming to Ireland is as follows:
‘They came first out of that vast undefined tract, called Scythia — a region which probably included all of Southwest Europe and adjoining portions of Asia. They came to Ireland through Egypt, Crete, and Spain. They were called Gaedhal (Gael) because their remote ancestor, in the days of Moses, was Gaodhal Glas... Niul, a grand-son of Gaodhal, who had been invited as an Instructor into Egypt by one of the Pharaohs, married Pharaoh's daughter Scota — after whom Ireland was, in later ages, called Scotia. And the Irish Scoti or Scots are the descendants of Niul and Scota. In Egypt Niul and his people grew rich and powerful, resented the injustice of a later Pharaoh, were driven from the land, and after long and varied wanderings, during succeeding ages, reached Spain [in the days of Jeremiah]. When, after they had long sojourned in Spain, they heard of Ireland (perhaps from Phoenician traders) and took it to be the Isle of ‘Destiny, foretold for them by Moses, their leader was Miled or Milesius, whose wife also was a Pharaoh's daughter, and named Scota, Miled's uncle, Ith, was first sent into Ireland, to bring them report upon it. But the Tuatha De Danann, suspecting the purpose of his mission, killed Ith.
‘Miled having died in Spain, his eight sons, with their mother, Scota, their families and followers, at length set out on their venturous voyage to their Isle of Destiny”’ (The Story of the Irish Race, pp.8-9). Now MacMunus comments about this legend in his footnote on page 9, “Here let us understand that the ancient historical legends of Ireland are, generally speaking, far from being baseless myths. The Irish people are a people who eminently cling to tradition. Not only were the great happenings that marked great epochs enshrined in their memory forever, but even little events that trivially affected the history of their race, were, and are, seldom forgotten. We know that away back to the remotest antiquity, the scatiacliic (shanachy, the historian) and the poet were honored next to the king, because of the tremendous value which the people set upon the recording and preserving of their history. The poet and the scanachie following the fashion of the time, took advantage of their artist privilege to color their narrative to an extent that to the modern mind would seem fantastic But it was with the details of the story that they were granted this liberty. The big essential facts had to remain unaltered. The things of importance no poet of repute, however highly he might color, could or would dare to falsify.” (The Story of the Irish Race, pp.8-9, cf., emphasis added).
The Encyclopedia of Ireland by Brian Lalor says, “The authenticity of some of the pagan sacral kings of later Iron Age [400 A.D.] is not in doubt” (emphasis added, p.1034).
These Milesians settled in Northern Ireland at a place called the hill of Tara in Ulster. The Hill of Tara was the Inauguration Mound (Irish: an Forrad) on the Hill of Tara in County Meath, Ireland, which served as the coronation stone for the High Kings of Ireland. It is also known as the Coronation Stone of Tara. In legend, all of the kings of Ireland were crowned on the stone up to Muirchertach Macc Ercaec. AD 500.
Did Jeremiah, Simon Baruch, and the King’s daughter’s end up here at the hill of Tara?
In Ireland there is an inscription found in a tomb located in Schiabhla-Cailliche, near Oldcastle, County, Meath, Ireland, not far from Tara. Thirty-some stones with strange markings upon them lie in the sepulchral chamber within the huge cairn of stones which make up the tomb. A large carved stone outside the tomb is still pointed out as Jeremiah’s judicial seat. Confirmation lies on
those thirty stones in the cairn. Buried ineradicably in the poetry and folk-lore of Ireland is the tale of a Prophet, an Egyptian Princess and Simon Brug (Baruch) a Scribe.
Cairn T, Loughcrew, nr. Oldcastle, Co. Meath, Ireland. Tomb of Ollamh Fodhla
Entrance to the Tomb of Ollamh Fodhla with hieroglyphis depicting the journey in a ship of Tyre, with his companions.
The Judgment Seat of Ollamh Fodhla
The Hill of Tara
The Hill of Tara in Ulster, in Northern Ireland was a place where “the ancient seat of power in Ireland” stood, and “on top of the Forradh, ‘Royal seat,’ is one of the most important monuments, the Lia Fail (Stone of Destiny), said to be the inauguration stone of the kings of Tara” (The Encyclopedia of Ireland by Brian Lalor p.1035).
This hill was named Teamair (now Anglicised Tara, from the genitive case Teambrach of the word), a name which it got from being the “burial place of Téa, the wife of Eremon, of the Milesian brothers." (Manners and Customs of the Ancient Irish, by Eugene O'Curry, Dublin, p.12 1873).
It is these characters in history that we can identify as:
Tea Tephi as the younger daughter of Zedekiah Eremon the Milesian Prince Ollamh Fodhla as Jeremiah the Prophet Simon Breg as Baruch Jeremiah’s scribe
MacManus writes of Tara, “ ‘That the wonderful, remarkable description of Tara's ancient greatness, glory, and luxury,’ is not any figment of the fancy of the hundreds of ancient poets who sang its praises, is evidenced in many ways, not the least noteworthy of which is the silent testimony of the valuable and rarely beautiful ornaments which in recent times have been dug up
The Hill of Tara in Northern Ireland
there — amongst others, two splendid gold torcs (bands of twisted gold worn around the neck), one of them being five feet seven inches in length, weighing twenty-seven ounces, and the other of large size also, and weighing twelve ounces. Both of them are beautifully wrought” (Story of the Irish Race, see footnote, p.55-56, emphasis added). Again here we are dealing with historical facts. Prince Herremon- Pat Gerber, a lecturer at Glasgow University writes, "Princess Tamar married the High King of Ireland and . . . all the kings of Ireland and Scotland are descended from their royal line…Teamhair is the Irish for her name—mutated, through usage, to ‘Tara’—the name of the ancient seat of the high kings of Ireland just northwest of Dublin (Gerber, p. 49, Stone of Destiny, 1997, emphasis added). “Tara” many sources have concluded is derived from “Torah” the seat of the law. This high king of Ireland was Herremon, who come from the Royal line of the Milesians, and we have traced back to Colchi of the line of Zerah-Judah. “Of the Milesians, Eber and Eremon divided the land between them — Eremon getting the Northern half of the Island, and Eber the Southern. The Northeastern corner was accorded to the children of their lost brother, Ir, and the Southwestern corner to their cousin Lughaid, the son of Ith.” (MacManus, p.11). These Milesian princes divided Ireland, Eremon receiving Ulster, and the hill of Tara. From this place Tara became the most important place, and the throne was to rule all of Ireland. From this throne came a succession of kings. This list of kings have been preserved, as MacManus observes, “Names of a long list of kings, from Eremon downward, and important particulars regarding many of them, were preserved by the historical traditions — traditions that were as valuable, and as zealously guarded, as are the written State Records of modern days. The carefully trained file, who was poet, historian, and philosopher, was consecrated to the work — and, ever inspired with the sacredness of his trust, he was seldom known to deviate from the truth in anything of importance — however much he confessedly gave his imagination play in the unimportant details. And, much as the people reverenced him, they reverenced the truth of history more; and it was the law that a file, discovered falsifying, should be degraded and disgraced” (ibid, p.12, emphasis added). It is from this line that all the kings of Ireland and Scotland can trace their lineage as Gerber quoted above noted.
Tea Tephi-Is Queen Tamar, or Tephi the daughter of Zedekiah? First, the “tender” one in Ezekiel’s prophecy is a female. Her name Tamar as she is called is the same name as the mother of Judah’s children Pharez and Zerah (Gen 38). This name occurs often in the royal lines (2 Sam 13:1; 14:27).
Second Tea Tephi is the younger of the two daughters, the elder being Scota. Ezekiel’s prophecy said the younger would be Queen. Now, here is a great clue of finding out her identity. One of the primary Irish chronicles, The Annals of the Kings of Ireland by the Four Masters, mentions "Tea, daughter of Lughaidh, son of Itha, whom Eremhon married in Spain" (1636, Vol. 1, p. 31). At first glance, this would seem to rule out her being the daughter of Zedekiah. However, Lughaidh may not refer to an actual person. The Irish are referred to as the "race of Lughaidh" and Ireland as "the land of
Lughaidh"—"one of the many arbitrary bardic names for Ireland" (Annals of the Four Masters, Vol. 6, appendix). Lughaidh in old Gaelic could mean "House of God"—broken down as Logh, "God," and aidhe, "house, habitation, fortress" (Edward O’Reilly, An Irish-English Dictionary, 1821, 1864). "House of God" (Hebrew Beth-El) may have been a designation for the "large, rough stone" reportedly brought by Jeremiah (explained later). The word Lughaidh may also come from lugha or lughadh , meaning "oath"—apparently because it invokes God (O’Reilly, note by editor John O’Donovan, p. 671; N. MacLeod and D. Dewar, A Dictionary of the Gaelic Language , 1831, 1909)—and could be related to God’s oath to David. The name Itha or Ith may mean "crown," as does the related Welsh yd (O’Reilly). Ith, coming from Spain, is said to be the son of Breoghan in some accounts, but this may simply be because the Milesian line of kings came to Ireland from Brigantium (modern Corunna near Santiago de Compostella) on the northwest coast of Spain. Indeed, Tea is in at least one old poem called Temor of Bregia. Brega or Breagh, it should be noted, was the immediate territory of Tara in ancient Ireland, named after the Celtic tribe known as the Brigantes (or vice versa). The Brigantes were located in southeast Ireland by the Roman geographer Ptolemy around 150 A.D. He also mentioned them as being one of the Celtic tribes in Britain at that time, as other sources attest. Some now believe that they derived their name from the Celtic goddess Brigid. Indeed, it could be that she is simply a later deification of Tea, combined with features of other pagan goddesses. According to some scholars, the name Brigid "comes from the Old Irish brigante , meaning ‘the exalted one’" ( In Search of Ancient Ireland , Program 2: "Saints," PBS Home Video, 2002). This title could conceivably correspond to the modern "highness" for a royal personage. In any event, it is certainly possible that the name Brigantes or Brega originally came from Brigantium in northwest Spain—all perhaps relating to a royal title. Thus, "Tea, daughter of Lughaidh, son of Itha, son of Breoghan" could conceivably be read as "Tea, daughter of the House of God [or oath], child of the crown, child of Brigantium [or child of royalty]." This would well describe a Jewish princess of David’s line who came to Ireland by way of the Iberian Peninsula.
Simon Breck (Baruch)-The Bible tells us that Baruch was the scribe for Jeremiah. Irish History tells us that with this company that came from Spain into Ireland was a man named Breck. He was Ollam’s secretary. There is disputes whether he was contemporary with Ollam Fodhla we will examine this later in the booklet. Another interesting clue is Baruch in Paleo-Hebrew is Berekh. Irish tradition has Breck, Breac, Barak. When he came to Ireland brought with him, according to Moore’s footnotes, “There is also another of the grandsons of Nuad, named Simon Breac, who is made to play a distinguished part in the Scotch version of our Milesian story; being represented therein as the importer of the famous Stone of Destiny, and even substituted, in place of Heremon, as the founder of the Milesian monarchy.” (Fordun, 1 i. c, 26. See also Stilling’s fleet's Origin. Briton, cap. 5.)” (History of Ireland, p.77). He brought Lia Fail, the Stone of Destiny with him to Ireland. This stone is the stone that the kings of Israel were coronated on, called Jacob’s pillar stone (more on this, later in the booklet). There are different versions of his story, the most important thing is to sift out the contradictions and stick to the facts, this being him bringing the stone of destiny to Ireland.
Ollam Fodhla-Is this Jeremiah the Prophet? Ollam Fodhla according to the Annals of the Four Masters, p. 412: “Amongst the most celebrated kings of Ulster, who also reigned as monarchs of Ireland, was Ollamh Fodhla, or Ollav Fola, the famous legislator, whose reign is placed by Tigernach, O’Flaherty, and others about seven centuries before the Christian era. He founded the Conventions of Tara, or great triennial legislative assemblies, of which an account has been given at p. 297 in these annals.”
he conceived the idea of a triennial assembly of the kings, princes, nobles, a deputation of the Olam, and heads of the people an epitome of representation… The nine laws established at this time, were, with a very few additions, the only laws of Eri whilst sovereignty resided within the land; they sufficiently demonstrate the genius of the people.”
We can also identify this great legislator by the meaning of his name. Ollam can be read in the Hebrew language as "ancient" or "secret" (James Strong, "Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary," Abingdon’s Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible , Strong’s No. 5769; Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon, Logos Software, Nos. 5769, 5956)—perhaps indicating a possessor of secret knowledge (Milner, p. 12). Fodhla or Fola can be understood in Hebrew to mean "wonderful" (Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon, Strong’s Hebrew No. 6381) or in Celtic as "revealer" (Milner, p. 12). All of these meanings considered together seem to indicate a Hebrew prophet. In Old Gaelic, ollamh designated "the highest qualification of learning and [is] now the modern Irish word for professor" (Ellis, p. 4). It appears that Ollam Fodhla founded a royal school or university within the national palace—referred to in the Chronicles of Eri as Mur Olamain , perhaps translatable as "House of the Prophets." His arrival into Ireland was 586 B.C. the same time Jeremiah was conducting his ministry. Now some argue that the chronology of Jeremiah doesn’t fit with Ollam Fodhla. The approximate times of Ollam Fodhla’s descent and reign, were dated about 400 years after Milesius, based on the Annals of the Four Masters. We should however be aware that these annals sometimes contradict each other in the details and also that their chronologies are often flawed. For example, many scholars agree that THERE ARE FAR TOO MANY KINGS IN THE IRISH LINEAGE AND THAT SOME HAVE, EITHER OUT OF IGNORANCE OR PURPOSE, BEEN ADDED.
Ollam set up laws that are strikingly similar to the Ten Commandments. When the nine laws of Eri were read out loud it is strikingly similar to the Laws of God read out loud, and all Israel agreeing to keep them (Deut 27). (see Chronicles of Eri pp. 100-112). The footnote on p.108 says, “As at some certain stage of society, every nation of the earth has
produced its legislator, so hath Eri ber Eocaid Olam Fodla. His was a spirit of peace, and having lamented the strife and contention that had existed ever since the arrival in this island of this tribe, and foreseeing the probability of a dreadful continuance thereof, if some bond of union should not be devised
Irish chronologies, like many other ancient chronologies, use time spans that are GREATLY EXAGGERATED. That doesn’t mean that the characters mentioned never existed. For example, for a long time EGYPTIAN HISTORIANS ONLY HAD Manetho’s list of Pharaohs available to them as a reference. He was an Egyptian priest writing down the history of this ancient nation in Greek. It places the founding of Egypt with the Great Pyramid to about 6000 B.C. Modern archaeology, however, can pretty much narrow the dates down to about 2100 B.C. using all cross references and CUTTING OUT OVERLAPPING DATES. That does not make Manetho’s list less valuable as a source to Egyptian history. David Rohl’s book “A Test of Time” makes the same argument for Egyptian Chronology, stating that the chronologies are 300 years too long, but never disputes the historicity of the events. The “Annals of the Four Masters” place the first year of Ollam Fodhla at A.M. (anno mundi) 3883. But we can see immediately that the assertion that this corresponds to the year 1317 BC does not agree with Biblical chronology. They assumed, adopting the Septuagint chronology that it took 5200 years from Adam to Christ, some 1200 years too many! A better way to date the arrival of Ollam Fodhla is described in the book “The Royal House of Britain - an Enduring Dynasty” (which is highly recommended to those interested in the details of this subject). Here we read that King Cimboath lived during the founding of Emania as the provincial capital of Ulster. His reign helps to determine the arrival of Ollam Fodhla through some ancient manuscripts attributed to the old-time poet Fortchern, which place him eight generations before Emania. It says: “The ‘Book of Invasions’ is also cited as giving the names of the seven kings between Ollam’s time and Cimboath.” So we have a second witness. Scholars have concluded that Ollam may thus have lived about 240 years before Cimboath, who lived up until 346 BC. THIS YIELDS A DATE FOR OLLAM’S ARRIVAL ON THE IRISH SCENE OF 586 B.C., right at the time when Jerusalem was taken by Nebuchadnezzar!
Now Ollam Fodhla, Jeremiah had companions with him when he arrived in Ireland. The Larne Times article writes: "Many centuries ago three people arrived on the shore at what is today Carrickfergus [Northern Ireland]. It was around 582 B.C. [no doubt a rough date but essentially after Babylon destroyed Jerusalem], and the three were an aged man called Ollam Fodhla (the Lawgiver), his secretary, and a beautiful princess called Tamar. With them they brought a large, rough stone"(more on this stone later). No doubt her husband Herremon was with Tamar, or Tephi. These came to Ireland after the destruction of Babylon. With all the historical references and the circumstances surrounding this whole event, one cannot come up with any other conclusion. Jeremiah planted the throne of David in Ireland, and is the first overturn of the throne written by Ezekiel.

This marriage between Tea Tephi and Herremon also fulfills a prophecy made years before about these two royal lines of Zarah and Pharez. "This BREACH be upon thee [Pharez]" (Gen 38:29). The line of Pharez, from which David sprang from, was suppose to HEAL THE BREACH between the two lines of Pharez and Zarah. It happened with this marriage.
The Second and Third Overturns
About 500 A.D. some immigrants led by Fergus Mor Mc Erc (the Great), from the Irish Gaelic
Kingdom of Dalriada, invaded the western coasts of Scotland, the land of the Picts.
"In A.D. 498, Fergus Mor Mac Earca, in the twentieth year of the reign of his father, Muredach, son of (Eugenius, or) Owen, son of Niall of the Nine Hostages, with five more of his brothers, viz., another Fergus, two more named Loam, and two named Aongus (or .AEneas), with a complete army, went into Scotland to assist his grandfather Loam, who was king of Dalriada, and who was much oppressed by his enemies the Picts, who were in several battles and engagements vanquished and overcome by Fergus and his party. Whereupon, on the king's death, which happened about the same time, the said Fergus was unanimously elected and chosen king, as line of the Blood Royal, by his mother; and the said Fergus was the first absolute King of Scotland, of the Milesian Race: so the succession continued in his blood and lineage ever since to this day."—Four Masters” (Irish Pedigees, Or, The Origin and Stem of the Irish Nation By John O'Hart, p.42, emphasis added). Keating says he is of the “race of Erremon.” (History of Ireland).
Irish Emblems
The Flag of Northern Ireland. Notice the Star of David, and the Scarlet colored hand in the middle. This indicated the union that healed the breach between Pharez and Zarah in the time of Jeremiah
Harp of Ireland
The Crest of Ireland is a symbol of King David's harp brought over by Jeremiah.
Three Lions on England’s crests and flags indicate the three overturns of the throne of David.
Four different regents governed during his reign, which ended officially in 1578, though he did not gain full control of his government until 1583. In 1603, he succeeded the last Tudor monarch of England and Ireland, Elizabeth I, who died without issue. In 1603 James moved to London from Edinburgh, and the throne of Scotland and England were merged into one Union called the Union of Crowns. Notice what James I says about his throne, “For as our Chronicles beare witnesse, this Ile, and especially our part of it, being scantly inhabited, but by very few, and they as barbarous and scant of ciuilitie, as number, there comes our first King Fergus, with a great number with him, out of Ireland, which was long inhabited before vs, and making himself master of the countrey, by his owne friendship, and force, as well of the Ireland- men that came with him, as of the countrey-men that willingly fell to him, hee made himselfe King and Lord, as well of the whole landes, as of the whole inhabitants within the same. Thereafter he and his successours, a long while after their being Kinges, made and established their lawes from time to time, and as the occasion required” (The Political Works of James I Charles Howard McIlwain, Ed. section 4). Hence, the third and final overturn of the Throne of David is complete. There it will stay until “he who comes whose right it is” one final overturn of the throne back to Jerusalem. This will be done by Christ. A prophecy that will be fulfilled soon by the prophet Isaiah (explained later in this booklet).
And from James I of England we come to Queen Elizabeth II, who sits on David's throne, and is established as ruler of the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, just as God promised in all the prophecies that we have read. Now the "low tree" of Zarah is finally elevated as "High," and the
Fergus the Great planted his throne from Ireland down to Scotland. Thus fulfilling the prophecy of Ezekiel of the second overturn of the throne of David.
The Third of Overturn
Fergus was crowned King of Scotland in 506 A.D. Descended from him was James the sixth of Scotland, who became James the First of England. He succeeded to the Scottish throne at the age of thirteen months, after his mother Mary, Queen of Scots, was compelled to abdicate in his favor.
head of a world power called the British Commonwealth of Nations. And David's seed is established on that throne today! It is now the David-Zarah-Pharez-Judah Line on this throne!
Also fulfilled in Ezekiel's prophecy about the throne of David is the "...fowl of every wing; in the shadow of the branches thereof shall they dwell." All the gentile people of this world have prospered under the rule of this Davidic throne. All people when they make one of the Commonwealth of Nations their home, they experience freedom, prosperity, and safety, under their head of State, The ENGLISH DAVIDIC THRONE!
Jacob's Pillar Stone
Have you ever wondered why the Kings of Ireland, Scotland, and England were coronated on a rock? Where did this tradition come from? Where did the Rock come from? Believe it or not, this rock and tradition come from the Israelites of the Bible and from Jacob himself!
Let's look at the history of this rock as its given to us in the pages of the Bible!
"And Jacob went out from Beersheba, and went toward Haran.
"And he lighted upon a certain place, and tarried there all night, because the sun was set; and he took of the stones of that place, and put them for his pillows, and lay down in that place to sleep.
"And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven: and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it.
"And, behold, the LORD stood above it, and said, I am the LORD God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac: the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed;
"And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south: and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.
"And, behold, I am with thee, and will keep thee in all places whither thou goest, and will bring thee again into this land; for I will not leave thee, until I have done that which I have spoken to thee of.
"And Jacob awaked out of his sleep, and he said, Surely the LORD is in this place; and I knew it not.
"And he was afraid, and said, How dreadful is this place! this is none other but the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven.
"And Jacob rose up early in the morning, and took the stone that he had put for his pillows, and set it up for a pillar, and poured oil upon the top of it." (Gen 28:10-18).
Later Jacob visited Bethel again: "And God said unto him, Thy name is Jacob: thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name: and he called his name Israel.
"And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins;
"And the land which I gave Abraham and Isaac, to thee I will give it, and to thy seed after thee will I give the land.
"And God went up from him in the place where he talked with him.
"And Jacob set up a pillar in the place where he talked with him, even a pillar of stone: and he poured a drink offering thereon, and he poured oil thereon.
"And Jacob called the name of the place where God spake with him, Bethel" (Gen 35:10-15). So
Jacob's pillar stone was a testimony to the fact that God would perform all these promises to Jacob of a great COMPANY OF NATIONS and a SINGLE POWERFUL NATION, and a whole DYNASTY OF KINGS to be descended from him. Can we doubt that this stone that God stood on top of, as well as the angels, with all its sacred associations would be treasured and preserved by Jacob's descendants for a long time to come?
Even God reminded Jacob about the pillar stone saying: "I am the God of Bethel, where thou
anointest the pillar, and where thou vowest a vow unto me..." (Gen 31:13).
There is biblical evidence to show that this stone was in the care of the Tribe of Joseph, and it was allotted to him. Jacob blessed each tribe and said to Joseph parenthetically: "(from thence is the shepherd the STONE OF ISRAEL:)" (Gen 49:24).
"Thence from this instance is an adverb used as a noun, and is equivalent in value to ‘that place’ or the place to which it refers. The phrase ‘from thence’ means ‘out from here’, ‘out from hither’, (or) ‘out of that place.’ The place...the stone came (Bethel) was a part of the inheritance of Joseph, when the land of Canaan was divided among the children of Jacob [Joshua 16:1]. This suggests that not only Bethel (city or place) but also Bethel, the PILLAR ROCK was given to the birthright family" (Jacob's Pillar, pp.6-7, emphasis mine).
Now we come to the Exodus, with the movements and the wanderings of Israel for 40 years. There is an interesting passage in Exodus 17. The people were thirsty for water and Moses cried to God for help and God said: "Go on before the people, and take with thee of the elders of Israel; and thy rod, wherewith thou smotest the river, take in thine hand, and go.
"Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink. And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel" (Ex 17:5-6).
Two interesting points to this episode:
1. God told Moses to smite "the rock," not "a rock."
2. The Apostle Paul wrote of this episode and he said: "And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ" (1 Corinthians 10:4). He was comparing the spiritual rock, to the physical rock that “FOLLOWED THEM.” This was not some rock attached to some mountain side. This rock was mobile going with them. Paul compared this rock with Christ then this rock had to be important. This rock was Jacob's Pillar stone.
Now when we get to the promise land we see that the kings of Judah were coronated by a pillar.
"And all the men of Shechem gathered together, and all the house of Millo, and went, and made
Abimelech king, by the plain of the pillar that was in Shechem." (Judges 9:6). The marginal translation says "by the oak of the pillar," showing very clearly that Abimelech was crowned king at the very spot where Joshua, "...took a great stone, and set it up there under an oak, that was by the sanctuary of YHWH.
"And Joshua said unto all the people, Behold, this stone shall be a witness unto us; for it hath heard all the words of YHWH which he spake unto us: it shall be therefore a witness unto you, lest ye deny your God" (Joshua 24:26-27). Since Joshua said that the stone "hath heard all the words of YHWH which he spake unto us," what other stone could it be but Jacob's stone which he erected at Bethel and called the HOUSE OF GOD? It was a witness to the covenant that God made with his people, and with Jacob, and now Abimelech was crowned king by this stone with all its sacred associations.
Moreover the kings of Israel continued to be crowned with this stone: "And he [Jehoiada the Priest] brought forth the king's son, and put the crown upon him, and gave him the testimony; and they made him King, and anointed him; and they clapped their hands, and said, God save the king.
"And when Athaliah heard the noise of the guard and of the people, she came to the people into the temple of YHWH.
"And when she looked, behold, the king stood by a [THE] pillar, as the manner was, and the princes and the trumpeters by the king, and all the people of the land rejoiced, and blew with trumpets: and Athaliah rent her clothes, and cried, Treason, Treason" (2 Kings 11:12-14). There is a definite article in this passage, so it should read "THE Pillar," instead of "a" pillar. So the kings of Israel were crowned with the pillar stone of Jacob. And they did it always in the Temple of God, which is the House of God, and Bethel, the stone was called the "House of God."
Here is another coronation ceremony in the days of Josiah, which is near the time of Jeremiah, when he was to begin his ministry 13 years after, read Jeremiah 1:2.
"And the king sent, and they gathered unto him all the elders of Judah and of Jerusalem.
"And the king went up into the house of YHWH, and all the men of Judah and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem with him, and the priests, and the prophets, and all the people, both small and great: and he read in their ears all the words of the book of the covenant which was found in the house of YHWH.
"And the king stood by a [THE] pillar, and made a covenant before YHWH, to walk after YHWH, and to keep his commandments and his testimonies and his statutes with all their heart and all their soul, to perform the words of this covenant that were written in this book. And all the people stood to the covenant" (2 Kings 23:1-3). The Hebrew in these passages is even more interesting, for it literally says the king stood upon the pillar (see Adam Clarke’s Commentary, 1967, note on 2 Kings 11:14; E.W. Bullinger, The Companion Bible, 1990, note on 23:3). Now we know that Jeremiah knew about Jacob's Pillar stone and that the custom was still practiced in his day!
Now we come to Jeremiah, Tea Tephi, and Herremon. Is there any recorded history of the stone being brought from Jerusalem to Ireland?
It is interesting that you find that the stone underneath the chair at Westminster Abbey has "...IRON RINGS, the battered surface, the crack which has all but rent its solid mass asunder, bears witness to its LONG MIGRATIONS..." (Dean Stanley, Memorials of Westminster Abbey, 2nd Ed, p.66, emphasis mine).
Where did this stone come from? "About 700 BC it appears in Ireland, whither it was carried by the Spanish king’s son Simon Brech, on his invasion of that island. There it was placed upon the sacred Hill of Tara, and called ‘Lia-Fail,’ the ‘fatal’ stone [i.e., stone of fate], or ‘stone of destiny’ . . . Fergus Mor MacEirc (d. 501?), the founder of the Scottish monarchy, and one of the Blood Royal of Ireland, received it in [the area of Iona in southwest] Scotland, and Kenneth MacAlpin (d. 846) finally deposited it in the Monastery of Scone (846)" ( Westminster Abbey Official Guide , 1994, pp. 46-47). King Edward I took it to London—thereafter to be the seat of the kings of England. Eventually, the Scottish dynasty itself would follow the stone, being transferred to London. Westminster Abbey, the coronation church of the British monarchs, is the only place on earth where kings and queens are still consecrated with sacred oil, known as chrism (anointing). This practice, according to the PBS video series In Search of Ancient Ireland, "began in Ireland. Even in pre-Christian times, kings were never above the law. [With that background] the Irish church had been the first to introduce the ordination of kings, a simple and revolutionary idea spread to Europe by Irish scholars. Kings were now God’s anointed—ruling according to God’s law" (Program 3: "Warlords," 2002). Of course, the Irish tradition itself surely had a much earlier origin—as this was the tradition of the ancient kings of Israel and Judah. Indeed, on the large west stained-glass window of Westminster appear every one of the 12 sons of Jacob by name along with Moses holding the Ten Commandments and Aaron the high priest.
"...the customs [of coronation]...unites the throne of England to the traditions of Tara and Iona" (Dean Stanley, Memorials of Westminister Abbey, 2nd Edn, p.66, emphasis mine). These kings of Ireland, Scotland, and England were all coronated on this rock, the same CUSTOM OF THE ISRAELITES. All these proofs show that Queen Elizabeth was coronated on top of JACOB'S PILLAR STONE AND OCCUPIES THE THRONE OF DAVID!
The Coronation Stone
The Celtic name of the stone now in the Coronation Chair in Westminster Abbey is Lia Fail, "the speaking stone"
There is also an old prophetic verse engraved on the stone:
"Unless the fates are faithless grown,
"And the prophets' voice be vain,
Where ere is found the sacred stone,
"The wanderers race shall reign" (Judah's Sceptre and Joseph's Birthright, p.253).
Where did this Rock come from?
Tradition, legends, and historical facts tell us that this stone was brought from Palestine to Ireland, then Scotland, then England. Can this be confirmed? Many feel that the stone was quarried in Scotland. But this information comes from those whose aim is to dispel what they consider to be myth. The Rock is mobile due to the rings on it, clearly proving its migrations from one place to another. Due to excavations in Palestine, it’s been "... shown that the same kind of sandstone exists in the locality of BETHEL..." (Williams, Britain's Royal Throne, p.74, emphasis mine).
Raymond Capt writes: "One of the most significant FACTS about the coronation stone is that no similar rock formation is to be FOUND IN THE BRITISH ISLES. Professor Totten...after making a thorough examination of the stone made the following statement: 'the analysis of the stone shows that there are absolutely no quarries in Scone or Iona...Professor Odlum...discovered a stratum of sandstone near the RED SEA AT BETHEL, geologically the SAME AS THE CORONATION STONE..." (Jacob's Pillar, p.59, emphasis mine).
The Rock underneath the Coronation Chair, called “Jacob’s Pillar Stone”
God Bless our Gracious Queen
"And you, Tower of the Flock,-
"You fair maiden of Zion!-
"Produce you adornments, and come forth the QUEEN,
"The princess of Kingdoms, Jerusalem's daughter!" (Micah 4:8 Ferrar Fenton Translation).
Queen Elizabeth on Coronation day.
Glory of the British Empire under the Rule of David’s descendants.

Global Power
God promised David that he would have power all over the earth. David and his seed were to rule all nations. David ruled in the golden age of Israel/Phoenicia. But also his seed was to rule long after David died.
First God says about his power: "I will set his hand [authority] also in the sea..." (Psalm 89:25). Who can dispute the naval power of the British Empire in the 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries all under the rule of the throne of England!
David's line was to rule all nations as God said: "and thou hast made me the head of the heathen: a people whom I have not known shall serve me.
"As soon as they hear of me, they shall obey me: the strangers shall submit themselves unto me.
"The strangers shall fade away, and be afraid out of their close places.
"Therefore will I give thanks unto thee, O YHWH, among the heathen, and sing praises unto thy name.
"Great deliverance giveth he to his king; and showeth mercy to his anointed, to David, and to his seed for evermore" (Psalm 18:43-45, 49-50). Not just to David, but to his seed forever!
The Curse of David's Line
Along with all the great blessings, there also came a curse for David as well, and for his seed. Because of the sin of David committed with Bathsheba, and with the murder of Uriah the Hittite, God said to David that: "Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of YHWH, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.
"Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife" (2 Sam 12:9-10). The "sword" symbolizes death by violence. And murder would be common among the descendants of David. We see this all through the Bible in the story of David and his children. But also this curse has also clung to "...the ruling house of Parthia, and the more brutal rulers killed many of their own relatives in order to eliminate rivals to the throne" (ibid, p.215). Many of the rulers that sat on the throne of Ireland, Scotland and England had a very bloody history as well.
The Throne of the House of Israel
There is a certain prophecy that is almost totally ignored by all scholars and eschatologists about the throne of the HOUSE OF ISRAEL! Jeremiah wrote that "...David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel;" (Jer 33:17). The house of Israel would be ruled over by David’s seed, and his seed on that throne, which is in England today. But what of those Israelites outside the monarchy, who are not ruled by the throne in England? Notice it’s the throne of the house of Israel.
In the book of Kings, we see that after the split, David's descendants ruled over the House of Judah. Jeroboam, and other kings ruled over the House of Israel, see 1 Kings 11-13. This was a totally SEPERATE THRONE FROM THE THRONE OF DAVID!
In our booklet USA and Britain in Prophecy we prove that the Israelites were taken between the Black and the Caspian Sea, and they were called Scythians, Cimmerians, and Parthians. Is there any proof that David ruled over these people before the throne of David in England eventually ruled over these people? The answer is an absolute yes!
There is an interesting scripture in the 2nd book of Kings and Jeremiah, and it says that: "And it came to pass in the seven and thirtieth year of the captivity of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the
twelfth month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, that Evilmerodach king of Babylon in the year that he began to reign did lift up the head of Jehoiachin king of Judah out of prison;
"And he spake kindly to him, and set his throne above the throne of the kings that were with him in Babylon" (2 Kings 25:27-28) . See also Jeremiah 52:31-34.
The King of Babylon was supreme ruler over the empire, but he was served by many subordinate rulers, who were vassal kings over assigned areas. That a Babylonian king gave Jehoiachin a
THRONE indicates that Jehoiachin was made a vassal ruler over part of the Babylonian empire.
Indeed, the account says that he was set "above" the other vassal kings! Since there were many of the ten tribes subordinate to the Babylonian empire during that time (which Babylon inherited them after the fall of Assyria), it is most likely that Jehoiachin was made RULER OVER THE TEN TRIBED HOUSE OF ISRAEL! Since Jehoiachin was a descendant of David (of the Pharez line), his descendants apparently established a dynasty which continued to rule "over the house of Israel," even when they regained their independence from Babylon. In 1 Chron 3:16-24 it records that the royal family of Judah did not die out, but produced many descendants during the generation after the fall of Jerusalem. There was no shortage of princes of David's house to place on thrones over the House of Israel. Since the Babylonian king made Jehoiachin a favored vassal king, he may have set his sons and relatives in positions of power: "Perhaps the Babylonians felt that the captive nations of the Assyrians (whom they inherited as subjects) would exhibit less rebelliousness if they were given their own HEREDITARY RULERS AS VASSAL KINGS...There are many Parthian Kings with the names containing the root word 'phares' (indicating David's Royal bloodline). From the eastern edge of Parthia's rule and influence to the western edge, Parthian kings regularly included the 'Phases' name. A Parthian king who ruled in the area of West India was named Gondophares, and several kings ruling over the Caucasus Mountains, the Kingdom of Iberia [Hebrew] were named Pharasmanes...many kings of Parthia itself had names indicating that they were also royal members of the Davidic line of Judah. Such names include the key consonants of PH-R-S in Hellenized form of their Parthian names (Phraates, Phraortes, and Phraataces are examples)..." (Steve Collins, Lost Ten Tribes of Israel...Found, pp.213, 212, emphasis mine). History shows that Jehoiachin's seed ruled over the Parthians, who were of course the House of Israel. Remember, Jehoiachin's seed were no longer to prosper on DAVID'S THRONE IN JUDAH: "...for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling anymore in Judah" (Jer 22:30). But in Parthia, it was the "throne of the HOUSE OF ISRAEL" (Jer 33:17), which was separate from the throne of David.
This throne was over the ten tribe House of Israel: "And he said to Jeroboam, Take thee ten pieces: for thus saith YHWH, the God of Israel, Behold, I will rend the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and will give ten tribes to thee:
"(But he shall have one tribe for my servant David's sake, and for Jerusalem's sake, the city which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel:)
"And unto his son will I give one tribe, that David my servant may have a light alway before me in Jerusalem, the city which I have chosen me to put my name there.
"And I will take thee, and thou shalt reign [ISRAEL'S THRONE] according to all that thy soul
desireth, and shalt be king over Israel" (2 Kings 11:31-32, 36-37). Jeroboam ruled on the throne of the House of Israel. David's seed ruled on David's throne over Judah and Benjamin. So Jehoiachin's seed inherited the throne of the house of Israel that was vacant. From Jeremiah's time until now that throne was occupied by a Davidic King.
After Parthia fell, the Parthians with their long line of Kings migrated up to Armenia: "The Armenian monarch, who had been set on his throne by Artabanus [Parthian king defeated by the Persians] and was an uncle to the Young princes [of Parthia], was especially anxious to maintain the Arsacids [royal family of Parthia] in power; he gave them refuge in Armenia" (Rawlinson's Sixth Oriental Monarchy, p.367, emphasis mine).
The Encyclopedia Britiannica adds: "The members of the Arsacid line who fell into the hands of the victor [the Persians] were put to death; a number of the princes [of Parthia] found refuge in Armenia; where the Arsacid dynasty maintained itself till A.D. 429" ("Persia," p.580, emphasis mine). These records document that the first reaction of the Parthian king was to take refuge in Armenia towards the Black Sea into Europe. The dynasty ruled until 429 A.D.
During and after they stayed in Armenia there was a massive migration of the Parthians and
Scythians into Europe in the third century A.D. and after: "Since it is an all well established fact that the Parthians and Scythians were related tribes, the 'Scythian' migration into Europe would have included masses of Parthian refugees (during the 3rd A.D. and afterward" (Collins, p.327). Did the Royal family go with them? "When Parthia fell, history records that the Arsacids fled northwest (towards Europe) along with the rest of the Parthian refugees. As the Parthian refugees dispersed into Europe, it is likely that they followed...dispersing the Arsacid bloodline throughout Europe. The centuries intermarriage among the rulers and nobility of Europe’s Kingdoms would have resulted in the Arsacid bloodline being preserved in many of Europe's dynasties" (ibid, p.368, emphasis added). Here again God promised that he would "multiply the seed of David" (Jer 33:22).
Presidents of the USA
Many Americans do not realize that all of the American Presidents are related to the Royal Families in Europe in including the current one Barak Obama.
“If America declared its Independence from the European monarchies in 1776, how is it possible that every single president has descended from European monarchs? If presidents are democratically elected as we are told, what are the odds that American’s always choose members of British and French royal bloodlines?
“The Americas have always been owned and governed by the same royal families of Britain and Europe that conventional history states as being among those defeated during the wars of so-called ‘Independence.’” -Michael Tsarion, “Astrotheology and Sidereal Mythology”
“If it really is the Land of the Free and if, as is claimed, anyone really can become the president, you would fairly expect that the 43 presidents from George Washington to George W. Bush would express that genetic diversity. You’re having a laugh. The presidents of the United States are as much a royal dynasty as anything in Europe, from whence their bloodlines came.” -David Icke, “Tales from the Time Loop”
Thus the “Throne of the House of Israel” can also mean, not just the throne of England, but the Presidents of the United States of America as well!
The Throne of David in Prophecy (The 4th and final Overturn).
What is prophesied to happen to the throne of England in the near future before Jesus Christ overturns that throne and brings it to Jerusalem once again? If we do not repent what will happen to the royal family?
Isaiah 22 gives us the answer, and it says this: "Thus saith YHWH GOD of hosts, Go, get thee unto this treasurer, even unto Shebna, which is over the house, and say,
"What hast thou here? and whom hast thou here, that thou hast hewed thee out a sepulchre here, as he that heweth him out a sepulchre on high, and that graveth an habitation for himself in a rock?
"Behold, YHWH will carry thee away with a mighty captivity, and will surely cover thee.
"He will surely violently turn and toss thee like a ball into a large country: there shalt thou die, and there the chariots of thy glory shall be the shame of thy lord's house.
Many People cheer that there is a black President. But he is half black and half white. It is through his mother’s lineage that Barak Obama is related to the Royal Houses of Britain. The gateway to President Obama’s shared ancestors with President James Madison, and to one of their royal lineages, is through Martha Eltonhead, who was born in England more than 400 years ago. This is their shared descent
“And I will drive thee from thy station, and from thy state shall he pull thee down.
"And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah:
"And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.
"And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.
"And I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father's house.
"And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his father's house, the offspring and the issue, all vessels of small quantity, from the vessels of cups, even to all the vessels of flagons.
"In that day, saith YHWH of hosts, shall the nail that is fastened in the sure place be removed, and be cut down, and fall; and the burden that was upon it shall be cut off: for YHWH hath spoken it" (verses 15-25).

What does all this mean?
First we must understand who the two characters in this prophecy are, and what their roles were in ANCIENT ISRAEL. This prophecy is dual in nature as we will see. Eliakim and Shebna were people in the past, and when we understand who they were, we will understand what the END TIME SHEBNA AND ELIAKIM WILL DO IN THE FUTURE.
Shebna was an "officer second in rank to the king...during Hezekiah's illness (cf. 38:1ff). Shebna
RAN THE GOVERNMENT and may have acted without CONSULTING THE KING IN SUCH
MATTERS as construction of the tunnel...He may also have acted secretly trying to gain support in the rebellion against Assyria (wolf). His actions BETRAYED and absence of faith that was found in the king. Further he was guilty of EXTRAVAGANT LIVING AT A TIME WHEN THE NATION HAD BEEN IMPOVERISHED BY WAR" (JFB New Commentary on the Whole Bible, p.920, emphasis mine). Unger's Bible Handbook calls him, "the proud materialistic USURPER...to be thrusted out of office..." (p.321, emphasis mine). Shebna was one who lives a lifestyle so extravagant even in the times of trouble he rides around in "chariots of glory" (v.18).
Now God says that he will "pull down" Shebna from his "station" and "state" meaning his position in government. Then he will be violently tossed into a land with a "mighty captivity." (v.18).
Now (verse 20) we get to Eliakim. Eliakim will clothed with "thy [Shebna's] robe," and "girdle" meaning a royal robe. God will also "commit thy [Shebna's] government into his [Eliakim's] hand." and he shall be a "father to the inhabitant of Jerusalem."(v.21). Here we see Shebna in charge of the throne of David. For he is called a "Usurper." And a "Usurper' is one who ceases power of a government, see Oxford Dictionary.
Now in (verse 22) we see that this is an end time prophecy, and there is an end time Eliakim and Shebna: "And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open." This statement is applied to Jesus Christ, see Rev 3:7. So this prophecy is talking about Jesus Christ the Messiah! Halley's Bible
Handbook writes: "In the elevation of Eliakim to the office there maybe hints of MESSIANIC implication (22-25)" (p.296, emphasis mine). See also Adam Clarkes Commentary, p.242. And what office is Jesus Christ going to inherit when he comes? The throne of David, Isaiah 9:6-7; Luke 1:32. So this office that Eliakim is going to inherit is the throne of David in this prophecy.
The "nail in a sure place" (v.23) is also found in Zechariah 10:4: "Out of him [Judah] came forth the corner, ["cornerstone" NIV, NASB] out of him the nail, out of him the battle bow, out of him every oppressor together." The cornerstone is Jesus Christ see 1Peter 2:6-7. The nail is also a symbol of "reliability and honor" (JFB Commentary, p.921).
"…and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father's house." (v.23). Notice a "throne" for this end time Eliakim that he took from Shebna. This Eliakim who is Jesus Christ is going to inherit the throne of his father David. So this end time Shebna must be on the SAME throne, since Eliakim is to take his robe and government away from him (v.21).
"In that Day," (v.25) always means the end time, the second coming of Christ. The " nail that is fastened in the sure place be removed, and be cut down, and fall;" How can that be? The prophecies say that the increase of "his [Jesus] government" there shall be no end, Isaiah 9:6-7. How do we reconcile these two statements? Dr. Bullinger's Companion Bible has the answer: [it] refers back to the day v.20 i.e. the day of SHEBNA'S OVERTHROW. This would be the day of Eliakim's exaltation" (p.958, emphasis mine).
Who is this end time Shebna who occupies the throne of David? Most likely it will be Prince
Charles. This "usurper" will cease power in Parliament, and run the government in Britain, and he will rule once more because of the time of "trouble," the economic collapse of the world economy. Prince Charles, when he is crowned King, will betray the very throne that he will inherit, just like Shebna of the past. How? TO THE BEAST, who is prophesied to capture Israel, and throw them into a mighty captivity. But before that happens, the King of England will make an agreement with the Beast and hand over his throne to the beast power and become a vassal king to the beast. Then the "Assyrian [The Beast, see Germany in Prophecy for further Details] shall be his king" Thinking that he will save Britain and his throne, and to keep his lavish lifestyle. But then, when the Great tribulation happens to Britain, the throne will be "pulled down" (Isaiah 22:19, 25), as in Jeremiah's day. And our king will be put into captivity! And Ephraim, "shall eat unclean things in Assyria [the beast]" (Hosea 9:3; 10:6).
The Covenant with Assyria
Isaiah 28 corroborates Isaiah 22. Here we find a prophecy about Ephraim (Britain) as a "fading flower," the fading British Empire and its Commonwealth, and then God prophesied about its rulers:
"Woe to the crown of pride, to the drunkards of Ephraim, whose glorious beauty is a fading flower, which are on the head of the fat valleys of them that are overcome with wine!
"The crown of pride, the drunkards of Ephraim, shall be trodden under feet:
Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.
"Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:
"Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.
"Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place.
"And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it.
"From the time that it goeth forth it shall take you: for morning by morning shall it pass over, by day and by night: and it shall be a vexation only to understand the report" (Isaiah 28:1, 3, 14-19). Who is this covenant made with? "Ephraim (Britain) feedeth on wind...and they do make a covenant with the Assyrians" (Hosea 12:1). Who is Assyria? Modern-Day Germany!
Now as we shall see in Isaiah 28, that it is a dual prophecy. We read that these rulers of Israel, the Royal House of Britain, having made this covenant, Britain thinks that the "overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us:" (v.15). They think that they will avoid the great tribulation. It reminds me of Chamberlain when he held the famous white paper saying "It is peace in our time." Hitler attacked anyway. The same thing will happen to Britain again. The King of Britain will make a covenant with the Beast again, and God says, "And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it." (v.18). The Great Tribulation will hit Britain at the hands of the Beast unless we repent!
But now look what God says in verse 16: "Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste. " This is
Jesus Christ, see Romans 9:33; 1 Peter 2:4-6. And it says that he that "believeth shall not make haste" or as the margin says "forced to flee." Why? Because that person is protected by Jesus Christ making him our refuge, see Psalm 91; Rev 12. But by this statement we know that this is an end time prophecy. Notice that Jesus is a sure "foundation" just like the "nail" in the "sure place," of Eliakim. These two prophecies of Isaiah 22 and 28 are talking about the same event!
The Captivity of the Royal Family
Now during this time called the Great Tribulation what will happen to the King of Britain? Captivity! It states this in Isaiah 22 and also in Deuteronomy 28:36-37: "YHWH shall bring thee, and thy king which thou shalt set over thee, unto a nation which neither thou nor thy fathers have known; and there shalt thou serve other gods, wood and stone.
"And thou shalt become an astonishment, a proverb, and a byword, among all nations whither
YHWH shall lead thee"
"Behold, YHWH will carry thee away with a mighty captivity, and will surely cover thee.
"He will surely violently turn and toss thee like a ball into a large country: there shalt thou die, and there the chariots of thy glory shall be the shame of thy lord's house.
"And I will drive thee from thy station, and from thy state shall he pull thee down" (Isaiah 22:17-
19).
God told David that his seed would last forever. But if they would sin, then God would have to chastise them with the rod of men, see 2 Samuel 7:14. God will correct the seed of David as a father chastens his son see Hebrews 12:5-13. This shows how stubborn mankind is. Instead of heeding the message now and repenting, they don't listen, and it takes God to put us into captivity to make us repent. God has to take it to that extent, for us to finally soften our hearts, boy is man stubborn. Let's pray for our King and Queen, and pray that they repent of their sins before it’s too late!
"...the chariots of thy glory shall be the shame of thy lord's house.
"And I will drive thee from thy station, and from thy state shall he pull thee down" (Isaiah 22:17-19).
Arguments
Of course they will always be arguments against this precious truth. So we will answer them one by one.
1) The first argument has to do with the word “Overturn.” New Translations have “Overthrown” or “a ruin.” Some argue that the throne is not continual. That it stopped at the time of Zedekiah and will start again at the time of Christ.
Answer: Keith Hunt writes: “A certain individual has written: “......Some who believe in Anglo-Israelism, as it is sometimes called, teach that the throne of David in Jerusalem was transferred three times: first from Jerusalem to Ireland, then to Scotland, and then to England, where it will remain until Jesus returns to transfer it back to Jerusalem. Ezekiel 21:27, with its three overturns (in the KJV), is used to support this theory, with overturn taken to mean ‘transferred.’ However, check this passage in a contemporary translation. ‘A ruin! A ruin! I will make it a ruin! It will not be restored until he comes to whom it rightfully belongs; to him I will give it’(NIV). As most translations show, the sense of the Hebrew word used in Ezekiel 21:27 is ruination or utter destruction, not transference. The throne of David is overturned in the sense of spilled milk and certainly cannot be used to support the idea of three transfers. Furthermore, the verse makes it clear that the throne will remain in a state of ruin until he (the Messiah) comes to whom it rightfully belongs.” (Focus on Truth, Aug. 85).
“Do most translations show, as the writer states, the sense of the Hebrew word used in Ezek.21:27 to mean ruination or utter destruction? The Amplified Bible gives it as OVERTHROW, which does not necessarily mean ruination or utter destruction. The New KJV translates as ‘OVERTHROWN, overthrown, I will make it overthrown.’ The Living Bible still retains the word as OVERTURN.
“Now even if you could show that more translations render it as ‘ruin’ or ‘utter destruction’ than ‘overturn’ - that of itself would prove nothing. It is the meaning of the Hebrew word that counts and the sure word of God’s promise to David that holds the truth.
“The Hebrew word we are looking at is number 5754 in Strong’s Concordance. It is only used in this one place in the OT. Strong’s says: “avvaw; intens. from 5753 abbrev.; overthrow: - overturn.” As for number 5753 Strong’s says “awvaw; a prim. root; to crook, lit.or fig. (as follows): - do amiss. bow down. make crooked, commit iniquity, pervert, (do) perverse (ly), trouble, turn, do wickedly, do wrong.”
“The ‘THEOLOGICAL WORDBOOK of the Old Testament’ says concerning this word ‘ avvaw ‘ page 651, “This noun occurs only in Ezk 21:27(32), where it is used three times to express a superlative degree. The ASV translates this word ‘overturn’, associating it with the root ‘awa,’ ‘bend....” Under the word “awa” the above TWOT on page 650 gives it as meaning “bend, twist, distort.”
“Look at the PROMISE God gave to David concerning his throne:
“I have found David my servant; with my holy oil have I anointed him......... My mercy will I keep for him for ever more, and my COVENANT shall STAND FAST with him. His SEED also will I make to endure forever, and HIS THRONE AS THE DAYS OF HEAVEN. If his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments; If they break my statutes, and keep not my commandments,
then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes. Nevertheless my loving kindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail. My COVENANT WILL I NOT BREAK, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. Once have I SWORN by my HOLINESS that I will not lie unto David. HIS SEED SHALL ENDURE FOREVER AND HIS THRONE AS THE SUN BEFORE ME. IT SHALL BE ESTABLISHED FOR EVER AS THE MOON, AND AS A FAITHFUL WITNESS IN HEAVEN.” (PS.89:20-37).
“How simple, how plain to understand. Even a child can understand, yet many who claim to believe God and His word WILL NOT BELIEVE this SWORN PROMISE of God to David. How can this same God be telling us in Ezk.21:27 that He is going to BREAK that promise to David and bring his throne to utter destruction, as some unbelievers want us to believe?
“All that the Eternal God is telling us in Ezekiel is that He is going to BEND, TWIST, TURN that throne of David from Jerusalem - bend, twist, turn it yet again in time once more - then even yet another time, bend, twist, turn it over. After which, as the Hebrew reads “It shall be no. It shall be no more WHAT? No more in existence? With the sure unconditional promise God made to David, of course not! It shall be no more BENT, or TURNED over, until he comes (the Messiah) whose right it is, then it shall be bent, twisted and turned over once more for the final and last time in history.
“Was the throne of David brought to RUIN for Jerusalem - was it brought to utter destruction for
Jerusalem? To be sure it was! That throne left Jerusalem and went to Ireland with Jeremiah. Was that throne of David brought to ruin, brought to utter destruction for the Irish and the city it dwelt in? To be sure it was! That throne was taken to Scotland.
“Was that throne of David brought to ruin for the Scots? To be sure it was. That throne was taken to England, where it has never moved. Three BENDS, three TWISTS, three TURNS, three times that throne was brought to ruin for some people, BUT NEVER DID IT STOP TO EXIST!
“When I say it was moved or bent or came to utter destruction for the Irish and then the Scottish, and has remained for the Anglo- Saxons, we are talking about the LINE of decent, not that physical stone under the “Coronation Chair” although it also went with the bending of the line of decent. Today that physical stone is in the “care of” the Scots, but they only “care for it” - when the next king or queen of Britain is coroneted, that stone will come back to Westminster Abbey and be placed back under the Coronation Chair for the service of crowning the next monarch of the British Empire and Commonwealth.
“If that throne of David ever came to an end, if it ever stopped existing on this earth, then God is
Proved a LIAR - He is proved unable to bring to pass what He claims is an everlasting promise.
“If that be so then His word is untrue and broken and need not be counted as inspired. If God is not able to keep that which He has committed, then He is a dead God with a dead word. IT IS JUST THAT SERIOUS!!
“But the real focus on the real truth is that God is true to His word and promises. David’s THRONE DOES EXIST ON EARTH TODAY!
“There are numerous books and booklets written on this subject of where the Israelite Tribes migrated to since the days of Moses, at the time of the Exodus (yes some parts of tribes “split off” under Moses and never did enter the “Promised Land” but wandered away into parts of Europe), and where they migrated to when the House of Israel was taken captive by the Assyrians from 745 to 718 B.C.” (David’s Throne Destroyed? What does the word “overturn” mean? emphasis his).
2) Others argue that the terms of David’s Line was conditional, while the “office” of David his throne was unconditional, and that throne of David would always last but a descendant of David would not always sit on it. Notice, “What we must realize here is that the “OFFICE” of the kingship over Israel was promised to David forever — NOT that someone of David’s line would always fill that “office.” Looking at it another way, the “OFFICE” itself exists forever even if the “office” is vacant from time-to-time!” (Does Queen Elizabeth Sit on a Throne of David, John D. Keyser).
He quotes 1 Kings 2:3-4: “And keep the charge of the Lord your God: to walk in His ways, to keep His statutes, His commandments, His judgments, and His testimonies, as it is written in the Law of Moses, that you may prosper in all that you do and wherever you turn; that the Lord may fulfill His word He spoke CONCERNING ME, saying, ‘IF your sons take heed to their way, to walk before Me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul,’ He said, ‘YOU SHALL NOT LACK A MAN ON THE THRONE OF ISRAEL.” I Kings 2:3-4.
“In this charge to his son Solomon, David makes it VERY CLEAR that the covenant is CONDITIONAL — conditional on the ACTIONS of those who came after David to sit on the throne of Israel!” (emphasis his). But is that what God is saying? That he would remove David’s descendants from the throne yet the throne would remain? Let’s take a look!
First can you separate the seed of David from the throne of David? What does your Bible say?
“And the word of the LORD came unto Jeremiah, saying,
“Thus saith the LORD; If ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season;
“Then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son
[descendant] to reign upon his throne;...” (Jer 33:19). Obviously the seed of David was to reign on the throne of David. Why have a throne called the “Throne of David” if one of David’s descendants is not going to sit on it. I guess Mr Keyser did not think this through.
Here again in Jeremiah, “Thus saith the LORD; If my covenant be not with day and night, and if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth;
“Then will I cast away the seed of Jacob, and David my servant, so that I will not take any of his seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: for I will cause their captivity to return, and have mercy on them.” (33:25-26).
Here again we see the seed of David appointed to be “rulers” over the house of Israel. And in the previous verses, it was to be on the throne of David. Also as God says in these verses that you cannot break this covenant. It is perpetual, for the throne and for the seed of David to rule on that throne. In 2 Chronicles 13;5 it makes it clear, “Ought ye not to know that the LORD God of Israel gave the kingdom over Israel to David for ever, even to him and to his sons by a covenant of salt?” The “covenant of Salt” means, “A perpetual covenant that could not be broken (see Numbers 18:9) and note” (Nelson study bible footnote). Salt meant preservation! The covenant as God says is forever for the seed and the throne of David, and for the seed of david to rule on his throne over Israel.
Now, what of the conditions? The Bible does say, “If thy children take heed to their way, to walk before me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul, there shall not fail thee (said he) a
man on the throne of Israel.” (1 Kings 2:3-4). Keyser also uses Psalm 89 to back up his theory, “But thou hast cast off and abhorred, thou hast been wroth with thine anointed.
“Thou hast made void the covenant of thy servant: thou hast profaned his crown by casting it to the ground.
“Thou hast broken down all his hedges; thou hast brought his strong holds to ruin.
“All that pass by the way spoil him: he is a reproach to his neighbours.
“Thou hast set up the right hand of his adversaries; thou hast made all his enemies to rejoice.
“Thou hast also turned the edge of his sword, and hast not made him to stand in the battle.
“Thou hast made his glory to cease, and cast his throne down to the ground.
“The days of his youth hast thou shortened: thou hast covered him with shame. Selah.” (vv.38-45).
Now does this all mean then as Keyser theorizes that as soon as the line of David sins, that God will kick him off his throne and that the throne will remain empty, even though its still on the earth occupied by another who is not of the line of David and God made void the covenant?
First as we have seen, God made it perpetual. Its everlasting. David’s descendants on his throne over Israel.
Second. Psalm 89:38-45, its NOT GOD SAYING THIS, this is what the PEOPLE were saying. It SEEMED like this is what was happening to the throne, notice, “Considerest thou not what this people have spoken, saying, The two families [David & Israel] which the LORD hath chosen, he hath even cast them off? thus they have despised my people, that they should be no more a nation before them.” (Jeremiah 33:24). These two passages of Jeremiah and David are speaking of the same topic, the throne of David and GOD IS TELLING JEREMIAH, “CONSIDER THOU NOT” what the PEOPLE were saying, and that is what they were saying the Psalm 89. Psalm 89 was written in the time of the exile of Judah, during the time of Jeremiah, see Holman Bible Handbook, p.343. So God says “Consider thou not” what the people say, Keyser should heed to what God says!
But what about the “If” in some of those passages? “If thy children take heed to their way, to walk before me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul, there shall not fail thee (said he) a man on the throne of Israel.” (1 Kings 2:3-4). Does that mean they would not sit on the throne anymore? NO! It meant that if they disobeyed as God told David in 2 Samuel 7:14-15, “If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:
“But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee.”
What happened to Saul? Saul died and his sons DID NOT CONTINUE ON THE THRONE! That was NOT going to happen to David and his seed. He would chastise them, but his dynasty would continue FOREVER.
3) Now another argument people come up with, by splitting hairs is about the word “forever” in 2 Samuel 7:14-15. The Hebrew word translated “forever” here, olam, does not always carry this meaning. Occasionally it means unending as long as certain conditions apply (compare Exodus 21:6; Jonah 2:6). Yes occasionally it does. But in other cases it does NOT! There are scriptures with this word that correctly shows that “forever” means “forever.”
“And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, [olam] and this is my memorial unto all generations.” This the same wording for the Davidic Covenant. It was forever unto “all generations” (see Psalm 89:3-4). No one will question this verse of God’s name and memorial. Its forever unto all generations, no conditions applied.
“And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever [olam].” The Passover feast was to be kept forever unto all generations, again no conditions applied. There are many more like this, but in the Strong’s it makes the word clear, “From H5956; properly concealed, that is, the vanishing point; generally time out of mind (past or future), that is, (practically) eternity; frequentative adverbially (especially with prepositional prefix) always: - always (-s), ancient (time), any more, continuance, eternal, (for, [n-]) ever (-lasting, -more, of old), lasting, long (time), (of) old (time), perpetual, at any time, (beginning of the) world (+ without end). Compare H5331, H5703. (emphasis added). And with the other scriptures I have showed you about the Davidic Covenant, it was to be forever without end unconditional!
4) Now we get to Jeremiah in Ireland. Some argue that Jeremiah did not go to Ireland, and that the annals of Ireland say that the Tea-Tephi legend appear in the annals and Ollam Fodla but that “they are TOTALLY DIFFERENT PERSONS IN THE ANNALS than the British-Israel legend makes them out to be” (Keyser Jeremiah in Ireland?, emphasis his). He feels that it was actually King David who went to Ireland, not Jeremiah and that these events took place much earlier than Jeremiah’s time. He thinks its king David Because Ollam Fodla was a King as well.
But Ollam can be read in the Hebrew language as “ancient” or “secret” (James Strong, “Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary,” Abingdon’s Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Strong’s No. 5769; Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon, Logos Software, Nos. 5769, 5956)—perhaps indicating a possessor of secret knowledge (Milner, p. 12). Fodhla or Fola can be understood in Hebrew to mean “wonderful” (Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon, Strong’s Hebrew No. 6381) or in Celtic as “revealer” (Milner, p. 12).
“All of these meanings considered together seem to indicate a Hebrew prophet. In Old Gaelic,
ollamh designated “the highest qualification of learning and [is] now the modern Irish word for professor” (Ellis, p. 4). It appears that Ollam Fodhla founded a royal school or university within the national palace—referred to in the Chronicles of Eri as Mur Olamain, perhaps translatable as “House of the Prophets.”
To the Dating of the events and of Ollam Folda Tom Robinson writes, “Indeed, even though there appear to be many more similarities between Jeremiah and Ollam Fodhla, Ollam appears in the Irish king lists as a king and sometimes as one who reigned centuries before Jeremiah. Simon Brach is also listed as a king—sometimes as the son of the king of Spain—who doesn’t always fit in time.
Neither seems to always fit chronologically with Heremon. And the names Tea, Tephi and Tamar don’t always seem to refer to the same person. However, while many obvious and important facts may be sifted from the Irish histories and various clan pedigrees, there is much reason to doubt their accuracy with respect to dating specific rulers—or, more accurately, to the
dating scheme the chroniclers adopted—particularly since they are not all in agreement. It seems the various records and traditions the chroniclers drew on were in somewhat of a jumble, and compiling them involved going through them and trying to put things in order. The records themselves may have been somewhat reliable. (We just don’t know as they are now lost.) But the way they were put together is clearly problematic.
“For instance, the compilers evidently placed dynasties in succession that were actually overlapping and contemporary—thus stretching the beginning of the Milesian kings back to an impossibly early date of 1700 B.C. (It is impossible because the Milesians arrived after the Israelite Danaans or Danites. And, in 1700 B.C., Jacob’s family, still small, had not even yet gone down into Egypt. There was, as yet, no tribe of Dan. Indeed, that was when Joseph was sold into Egyptian slavery and Perez and Zerah were only just born.)
“Additionally, it seems that in at least one instance where an ancient source of the Irish chronicles appears to have contained a Hebrew sentence, the compilers mistakenly reckoned the Hebrew words as the names of rulers (see Milner, p. 11 footnote). Furthermore, multiple individuals seem to have become conflated into one at times—or, in other cases, different aspects of the same person have been distributed among multiple people.
“That all being so, it seems entirely possible that Ollam Fodhla can be chronologically aligned t o be Jeremiah in the 500s B.C. Thomas Moore quoted Charles O’Conor’s Dissertations on the History of Ireland (1766, sec. 4) as showing that Ollam Fodhla held sway in Ireland around 600 B.C.—though Moore believed the royal sage lived much later.
“Regarding a tradition that Jeremiah is buried on Devenish Isle in Lough Erne near Enniskillen in Northern Ireland, a local publication states: “The Jeremiah stories are not local [they come from other parts of Ireland and thus do not constitute wishful thinking on the part of area residents], and are not found in the annals [under the name Jeremiah that is], where Cessair, Noah’s grand-daughter, and other Old Testament characters figure. There are two versions of the Jeremiah story.
“Jeremiah, a priest of the house of Aaron, fled from Jerusalem upon its destruction by the King
of Babylon, taking with him his daughter Hamutal, widow of King Josiah, and her two daughters [a common error since Hamutal’s father was also named Jeremiah but of Libnah, whereas the prophet Jeremiah was from Anathoth] and some national treasures from the Temple. The most important of these was the Lia Fail, or Stone of Destiny, Jacob’s stone.
“The boat was shipwrecked off the coast of Ireland, but the company managed to make its way
to the hill-seat of the last Tuatha De Danaan kings of the tribes of Dan. An Irish jingle is taken as evidence for this legend; the Finn in question is dated 600 B.C., the time of Jeremiah: Finn McCool went to school / With the prophet Jeremiah. So Finn learned the Law from Jeremiah, and his successor, the Milesian king, called the hill Torah (the Law) or Tara. Jeremiah’s body is said to have been conveyed all the way to Devenish island for a king’s burial . . .
“Another version of the story makes Jeremiah flee to Ireland with Tea Tephi, eldest daughter of Zedekiah, in the ships of the Danites. Again, his grave and the Lia Fail are said to be on Devenish” (Mary Rogers, Prospect of Fermanagh, 1982, pp. 30-31). However, some say he—or rather Ollam Fodhla—is buried near Tara. This could be another result of the confusion of various identities of the period.
“In any case, the dating of 600 B.C., or actually shortly afterward in the 500s, is quite reasonable. Indeed, a strong case can be made that the Milesian invasion did not commence until
about this time—a critical factor in considering when Ollam Fodhla came on the scene, since he flourished during the Milesian period (see Appendix 6: “Dating the Milesian Arrival in Ireland”).” (The Throne of David; Its Biblical Origin and Future, pp.14-16, emphasis added).
The Chronology of the events, we see, have been compiled into 4 different chronologies, “In fixing the period of this Monarch’s reign, chronologers have been widely at variance. While some place it at no less than 1316 years before the Christian Era” (the time of Gideon), “Plowden makes it 960 years” (the time of Jeroboam), “O’Flaherty, between 700 and 800" (the time of the Israelitish Dispersion), “and the author of the Dissertations, Mr. C. O’Connor, of Balanagare, about 600.” [The time. of the besieging of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, being, according to Hales, 602 B.C.] (F.R. A. Glover ENGLAND, JUDAH AND EPHRAIM IN BIBLE PROPHECY “THE TWO FAMILIES, emphasis added”). He says, “Ollam Fola, - cir. B.C. 600, according to the corrected chronology of Mr. O’Connor of Balanagare, in his Dissertations” (ibid, chapter 3). As Robinson has shown above as well, the favorable historical date that can be established for certain for the Milesian period is the 600’s B.C. the time of Jeremiah.
Why is he mentioned as a King? “Ollam Fola is not, in his presumed name, a king, by reason of this word Ollam. The word Ollam has a meaning. It is a Hebrew word, (Strong’s No. 5769); and has to do with any period of time short of eternity, or eternity: a natural word to apply to the office of a man whose business it was to teach men to look to Him ‘who keeps the times and seasons in His own hand,’ and Who, incarnate, should, according to the Hebrew Scriptures, at some certain time, appear in the East....With respect to the reason as to why Ollam Fola might have been concluded to be a king when he was none other than a prophet, it is easy to suppose that the Conductor and Guardian of the King’s Daughters, would, as guardian of these high-destinied women, be held by the vulgar, and by the Bards also in course of time, as himself a king. The character, also, which he had, the position he filled, and the relation in which he stood towards them and God, in Whose Name he spoke and Whom he represented (2 Cor. 5:20), would necessarily inspire that admiration and profound respect for the man, which, the kings who knew him readily according him, would, by the same vulgar, be interpreted into kingship over them. Hence all the exaggerated statements concerning the wonderful phantom, Ollam-Fola-Heremon: of whom and whose imaginary character the poet Moore feels constrained, albeit with great respect for the illustrious dead, to speak in the following philosophic terms:-” (ibid, chapter3, emphasis added).
But Jeremiah? Is it Jeremiah that is spoken of here in these chronologies of Ireland? Keyser says no! He flat out says “I have found NO SUCH TRADITION in the Irish annals [for it to be Jeremiah]” (Jeremiah in Ireland). He thinks these traditions are attributed to King David because of the chronologies and not Jeremiah. Is it Jeremiah? First we have established that Ollam Fodla came to Ireland in the time of Jeremiah. Second his name means as F.R.A. Glover shows “The word Ollam has a meaning. It is a Hebrew word, (Strong’s No. 5769); and has to do with any period of time short of eternity, or eternity: a natural word to apply to the office of a man whose business it was to teach men to look to Him “who keeps the times and seasons in His own hand,” and Who, incarnate, should, according to the Hebrew Scriptures, at some certain time, appear in the East.” (ibid, chapter 3). Fodhla or Fola can be understood in Hebrew to mean “wonderful” (Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon, Strong’s Hebrew No. 6381) or in Celtic as “revealer” (Milner, p. 12).
Also he, “The Ollav Fola, of Irish history, was the chief and first, and founder of the Order of Ollams, in Ireland. This was an order, not of kings, but of priests or sages; Druids so called: more properly Draoi, as General Vallancey insists. They were not Pagans. They were simple Deists.
“This Ollav Fola founded, also, a college of Ollams, at Tara; “At Tara, was also the building called Mur-Ollam-ham, or the House of the Learned: in which resided the bards, brehons, and other learned men.” - Annals of the Four Masters, p. 293. [ O’Donovan p. 53]. Or, as the Hebrews would say, ‘a school of the prophets;’ but not a college of kings.” (ibid, chapter 3). As we have seen in the Bible, Jeremiah was to go to a place he has never been before. He was travelling around Palestine and Egypt with the King’s daughters. He was ordered to “build and to Plant” the throne of David in Israel. Nowhere in the book of Jeremiah is his death recorded. His assistant was “Baruch,” like the Irish legends say Ollam Foldha assistant was “Breck or Barak.’ Who else can Ollam Foldha be? The truth cannot be any plainer!
5) The Stone of Destiny is actually cut from Scotland and not from Palestine.
Answer: “Sir Compton MacKenzie - the famous writer, literary critic and amateur politician - disputed this line of events. He believed the Stone to have been quarried on the West Coast of Scotland near Oban, although it has to be said that he offered little proof. However an additional and more specific... [it] hails from the ancient Irish Kingdom of Dalriada which existed from around 400 AD...Dalriadic Kings were enthroned at sacred ceremonies in which an enthroning stone which had been blessed by St. Patrick was used. The Stone embodied St. Patricks message in that wherever the Stone lay the race of Erc should reign. Hence the Stones title - Stone of Destiny. Erc was the first King of the Antrim Dal Riata tribe, and Antrim is, of course, in Ireland....” (Highlander Magazine, emphasis added). So we see that the stone hails from Ireland long before it went to Scotland, and the theory of it being cut in Scotland lacks proof. The stone was, “eventually moved from its resting place in Tara [the place where Jeremiah put it]...In one story, the Stone is loaned to Fergus Mor Mac Erc for his coronation in Scottish Dalriada and never was returned. In the other story, the King ordered a man killed in church. Because of this the Stone had to be moved as Tara and its King could no longer be considered holy. In either case, the Stone moved from Ireland to Scotia Minor around the early part of the sixth century AD.” (Scottish History and Culture, Jan 2000). The Irish Annals show “There it was placed upon the SACRED HILL OF TARA, and called LIA-FAIL, the ‘FATAL’ STONE, or ‘STONE OF DESTINY....” (Chronicles of Eri, Trinity College, Dublin). And that the stone is much older than it being in Scotland only, but in Ireland as well.
There Irish Kings were coronated, Heremon being the first one. Heremon being the son of Scota of Zedekiah’s line, the line of David continued in Ireland. The Irish Annals say, “It’s [the stone’s] bearers had resolved, at starting, to ‘move on the face of the waters, in search of their brethren.’ Shipwrecked on the coast of Ireland, they yet CAME SAFE WITH LIA FAIL...Eochaidh [Eremon — who had landed at a different part of the island] sent a car for Lia Fail, and he himself was placed thereon.
And Erimionn was SEATED ON LIA FAIL, and the CROWN WAS PLACED ON HIS HEAD, and the
MANTLE UPON HIS SHOULDERS, and all clapped and shouted. And the name of that place, from that day forward, was called “TARA.” (The Chronicles of Eri, Trinity College, Dublin. II, 3 p.89).
As we have pven in this booklet, Jeremiah brought this stone from Palestine, and as traced in the bible to Jacob’s pillar stone in Genesis 28. So what of the rock. Can it be traced to the land of Palestine?
There have only been two attempts to analyse the stone. One by Professor Totten of Yale University. The other by Professor Odlum, who was a geologist and professor of theology at Ontario University. Totten said, “The analysis of the stone shows that there are absolutely no quarries in Scone or Iona where-from a block so constituted could possibly have come, nor yet from Tara.”(emphasis added).
Professor Odlum, by special permission, was allowed with a British Geologist of repute to make a microscopic examination of the stone under the Coronation Chair. They worked under a tremendously powerful arc light. They had the finest microscopic instruments it was possible to get. They made a perfect microscopic examination of that stone and they compared what they found with Scotch granite; granite from Aberdeen; stone from Scone and from Iona, and so on, and they were absolutely satisfied and so wrote and stated, that the stone under the Coronation Chair was NOT the same texture, was NOT sandstone, and that there was no stone in the British Isles, anywhere, that compared with it. Notice, “After having made that microscopic examination of the stone I determined to go to Palestine - to see if I could find anything like it. I went to Bethel. I stayed there week after week. I couldn’t find anything like it and I began to think that I should have to give up in despair. My boat was due to sail from Jaffa on a certain date. Two days before that, before I had to take the train to Jerusalem and the coast, I made up my mind I would have one more walk and one more search.’ ‘I put on my old Macintosh, I stuck my geologist’s hammer in my pocket, and I went out for one last look. It was pouring rain. I walked along the same places I had walked over and over again, looking for stone. Suddenly, while I was walking along a certain pathway, with a rocky cliff on either side, the sun shone on the rain-streaked piece of rock and I noticed a peculiar sort of glitter that I thought I recognized. I climbed up and I found that wet rock, as far as I could see with the magnifying-glass I had was of the identical texture I had been looking for. He said: ‘I clipped off a piece from the living rock. I took it back to the hotel and examined it as well as I could. I was sure I had got what I wanted, and I was so jubilant that I cabled England to my geologist friend and said: Will you do all you possibly can to get a piece of the Coronation Stone no bigger than a pea, in order that we may submit it to a chemical test. We have submitted it to a microscopic test, we want to submit it to a chemical test.
Will you see what you can do?’ The geologist friend, with Mr. Herbert Garrison, then alive, made application to the Dean of Westminster Abbey, to be allowed to take a piece, no bigger than a pea, from the Coronation Stone. The Dean said: ‘I daren’t let you have permission. The only way you can get permission would be from the Archbishop of Canterbury.’ Well, they made the application to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and this was the reply of the Archbishop: ‘To take a piece from that stone no bigger than a pea would require a special Act of Parliament to be passed by the House of Commons, endorsed by the House of Lords, and signed by the King, and if you get that,’ said the Archbishop, ‘I won’t give you permission.’ “ (Quotes from “These are Ancient Things ). Notice, he found the rock at Bethel that matched the coronation stone In England. And Totten concluded there were no stones in Scotland Ireland or England that matched the coronation stone. You can only come up with the logical conclusion. The Rock is the rock of Jacob.

@Lucas :)

dommage que cela ne soit pas en Français.

Shmoulik a écrit:Ensuite si tu va par la le minde entier proviens des tribus dispercees.
Mais il est improbable que tout ces pays soit des descendants des descendants de tribues dispercees.

Dans ce cas où sont les 10 Tribus?

Le Danemark se revendique de la tribu de Dan.

Danemark = marque de Dan.

On sait que la tribu de Dan renommait ses villes en Israël avec le nom de sa tribu.

Nous avons aussi le Danube.

Les Galates=Gaulois ou les Galati sont connus sous le terme de Galadi et en français c’est une forme de l’hébreu "Gilead" (Galaad).

ect, ect...

leur descendance est bien quelque part sur la planète et elle s'est forcemment assimilée comme les prophéties Bibliques l'affirment. Les 10 Tribus ont bien existées et leur descendants sont toujours bien présents.

Béréshith/Genèse 35:11 (Septante)
Elohim lui dit (à Yaakov): Je suis ton Elohim : crois et multiplie ; des nations et des assemblées de nations proviendront de toi, et des rois sortiront de tes reins.

quelles sont ces nations qu'Elohim a fait sortir du sperme de Yaakov si ce ne sont les nations qui sont nées après la dispersion du royaume du Nord d'Israël.

L'Angleterre, la France, Danemark, tous les pays d'Europe, sont nés en tant que pays après la dispersion des 10 tribus du Nord d'Israël, elles n'existaient pas auparavant. Donc pourquoi serait-il du délire de penser que les descendants Israélites se soient mélaient à d'autres peuples pour former ces nouveaux royaumes?

Autrement, où sont les 10 Tribus d'Israël, je ne parle pas juste ici du peuple Juif.

Romains 9:27
Ésaïe, de son côté, s'écrie au sujet d'Israël : Quand le nombre des fils d'Israël serait comme le sable de la mer, Un reste seulement sera sauvé.

Nous savons qu'il s'agit du reste de ceux des nations et des Juifs.
Et pour ma part je crois que cela concerne plus que l'Europe, les USA, ect mais toutes les nations du monde parmi lesquelles les Israélites se sont mélés.

Mais tout ceci étant dit, pour qu'Israël revienne il faut que ceux des nations et les Juifs se convertissent à Yéshoua et suivent La Torah d'Elohim, ainsi Israël ressuscite des morts, il revient à la vie sinon ils ne restent que des étrangers aux yeux d'Elohim, ils ne sont pas son peuple.

shmoulik a écrit:Lucas jai mal au pouce a force de faire derouler sans fin les pages de ton etude.donc m'en veuille pas mais hop a la corbeille.
Admine je pense etre mieux place pour savoir comment dire les tribus .
Ensuite si tu va par la le minde entier proviens des tribus dispercees.
Mais il est improbable que tout ces pays soit des descendants des descendants de tribues dispercees.

Schmoulik tu as les touches page up et down à ta dispo pour éviter un "tennis elbow" du pouce gauche !!! (Bdirah ktanah)

Pourquoi es-tu mieux placé ?

Une étude ADN démontre que l'ascendance d'un clan d'une tribu noire africaine n'est autre que la tribu des lévites .

En anglais in the text, désolé

======================================


Lemba The Lemba, a black southern African tribe, claim Jewish ancestry.
The Lemba, The Black Jews of Southern Africa
Back to Build a Family Tree

Tudor Parfitt, the protagonist of the NOVA documentary "Lost Tribes of Israel," made a journey through southern Africa to study the unusual traditions of a black African tribe called the Lemba. This Bantu-speaking group claimed Jewish ancestry and observed many Semitic traditions such as kosher-like dietary restrictions and slaughter practices, male circumcision rites, strict rules against intermarriage, and Semitic-sounding clan names. (See Tudor Parfitt's Remarkable Journey.)

Parfitt spent many months with the Lemba, meeting their tribal and religious leaders and observing some of their most sacred rituals. He came to the conclusion that the origin of many of the Lemba traditions was indeed Semitic, not African. But whether these traditions came from Islamic or Jewish sources was impossible to discern from the historical and anthropological evidence available. It would take Y-chromosome studies to delve deeper into this question of origin.

A few years after his travels, Parfitt teamed up with a group from The Center for Genetic Anthropology at University College London to look for a genetic counterpart to the Lemba's oral tradition of Jewish descent. Using a relatively new technique in genetic studies, the team identified a particular series of genetic markers on the Y chromosome of Lemba males. They then compared these markers to other groups with whom the Lemba might have shared a common ancestor long ago.

The team collected DNA samples from Bantu (African), Yemeni (Arab), and Sephardic Jews and Azhkenazi Jews (including Cohanim from both communities) to compare the amount of similarity that existed between each of these groups. As we've seen, the more similar the Y chromosome, the more closely related are some individuals in the different groups to a common paternal ancestor. As a consequence, one can establish links between populations.


In an interview with NOVA, team member Dr. David Goldstein commented on the team's findings: "The first striking thing about the Y chromosomes of the Lemba is that you find this particular chromosomal type (Cohen modal haplotype) that is characteristic of the Jewish priesthood in a frequency that is similar to what you see in major Jewish populations. Something just under one out of every 10 Lemba that we looked at had this particular Y chromosomal type that appears to be a signature of Jewish ancestry. Perhaps even more striking is the fact that this Cohen genetic signature is strongly associated with a particular clan in the Lemba. Most of the Cohen modal haplotypes that we observe are carried by individuals of the Buba clan which, in Lemba oral tradition, had a leadership role in bringing the Lemba out of Israel."

What this study shows is that the Lemba, and more specifically some members of the Buba sub-clan, seem to have an ancestral connection to Judaic populations. Like an oral history, but written in the letters of their DNA, the Lemba Y chromosome hands from father to son a living record of the past.